Jump to content

Kioma

Members
  • Posts

    1,301
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good

Personal Information

  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Fascinating matters. And Doctor Who.
  • Occupation
    Self-Employed Layabout Weasel
  1. Unless you have any data - hard evidence of truthful data - about the resources it takes to update any particular part of this game then you must understand that your comments seemed - and still seem - to boil down to 'This shouldn't be in because I don't like it.' You cite that you believe it should go in if it will benefit the game sufficiently - all right, that's fair enough. You also cite that the game is in trouble (though I've yet to see any specific, factual evidence to state exactly and objectively how much 'trouble' it is in; you certainly haven't provided any). Here's the thing: I know at least a dozen people who would be far more inclined to play - and very likely start a subscription - if SGRAs were a part of the game. I have not done any particular research into how many would or wouldn't; that number is a rough one but it's pulled from actual conversations I've had about the game. Some used to play, some never have. All of them were surprised that SGRAs weren't in it from launch - specifically because it's a Bioware game. Now, maybe it's partly because I talk to people who tend to be sympathetic to LGBTI issues or are, indeed, themselves part of the LGBTI spectrum, but if I can think of that many without doing a survey I think it's fair enough to extrapolate that putting SGRAs in as an option would benefit the game's health far more than one might suspect (and a great deal more than you seem to be implying). timidobserver, you have stated you will never support SGRA inclusion. The word 'never' was yours. That means that even if the game were the healthiest in the world you would not support SGRA inclusion. Yet you say you have nothing against it going in if it's a suitable use of the resources that you don't have any data upon. I must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the reason you don't want SGRAs in the game is because of some form of homophobic ideal (because, truly, nothing else fits). So why are you bothering to come to this thread and say 'Oh, I don't have anything against it going in if the game's healthy enough but I'll never support it going in,' (both of which are concrete statements that you have made) and then getting uppity and morally righteous when people call you out on your stance?
  2. Oh, people are going to have preferred canons, don't get me wrong, I fully agree there. I just often see a lot of people having, shall we say, difficulty coming to grasp with factors from different canons that conflict with one another (such as the canon elements introduced in episodes I, II and III when contrasted against the EU). It wasn't a pointed comment at you, fabiyun. It was more a gentle reminder to people in general that when people say 'the canon needs revision' one then needs to establish which canon and how one thinks it needs to be revised. I mean... if they're completely separate does the canon really need to be revised or is it just a matter of accepting that they're separate (whether one is said to be 'more canon' or not)? Either way the only people who can actually revise the canon or say what should or shouldn't be in it are the creators. Fans can make suggestions and have opinions but in the end that's all they are - opinions and suggestions. Even if the ideas we come up with seem to make sense they aren't anything more than head-canon.
  3. Regarding SW canon, I don't necessarily see it as being poorly organised. Rather I see it as being unique among fiction canon by being broken into parts. Both Wookieepedia and LucasArts support this: there is more than one kind of Star Wars canon. In all other works of fiction - that I've seen, anyway - there is only one accepted canon. Everything that falls within it is canon; everything that doesn't is non-canon (or dubious canon if it hasn't been confirmed or denied by the creator/s). But in Star Wars there are multiple levels of canon, several different levels of reality as it were. The Holocron Continuity Database was created with several different forms of canon in mind. It's important to understand, in any discussion of Star Wars continuity, that continuity in one canon stream doesn't necessarily mean continuity in another.
  4. Indeed. If the media portrays something it implies only one thing without question: that it is profitable for the media group to do so.
  5. Any particular reason you're so firmly against equality in this matter, or is it mainly that it won't add anything to the game that you, personally, care about?
  6. They've 'put a hold on it' since before release. There's no realistic reason that an update containing what you vaguely describe as 'heavy content' (which I take to actually mean 'content that I want') can't also contain SGRA content updates. As Tatile says the evidence points to the developers simply not wanting to add it in but, on the same note, not wanting to actually come out and say that. We're now well past the point of taking things on faith. If they want us to believe something different then they need to start providing evidence. Makeb was barely a start. Cute, yes, but nothing more than that.
  7. No, I knew it wasn't a personal attack. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I think it's an assumption on the part of the game developers/writers. (and, of course, applies to just about any media you care to name) - they're telling everybody what they should want. Which, of course, means we have to let them know they're wrong. "Here, you don't need a well-developed character to enjoy this romance/story/whatever." Well... Actually yes, I do. From a consumer's perspective I have no problem with thematically appropriate characters that aren't very likeable because not every character should be an enlightened being free of bias or baggage. But every character you expect the audience to connect with, positively or negatively, should have a high degree of development. Are they a boorish lout? A patient mentor? An impetuous troublemaker? As a writer you should know why they're that kind of person, even if you never intend the audience to find out. I have a problem with facile cookie-cutter two-dimensional characters which are basically shoddy cardboard cut-outs of stereotypes that everyone's seen before. ...But I've probably gone on a tangent.
  8. Can't speak for all men but that's certainly not true of me.
  9. I'm still a fan of hero-sexualism. Not the most satisfying option but it solves far more problems than it creates.
  10. They were based on mitochondria, according to what Lucas has said on the matter.
  11. I don't think JetAten has made any 'mistakes', either in picking up the game with expectations or comparing it to other, non-MMO games. Bioware: Austin isn't the same company that made the games being compared to TOR but they have very much capitalised on the good standing of the Bioware name; all of the advertising carries the Bioware label and the EA label (at the bottom of this very page, for example) with no differentiation made between the Austin and Edmonton branches. I think that picking up TOR and expecting it to have the same rough level of quality in certain areas as previous titles is entirely reasonable. If nothing else the quality assurance people at EA should have made certain it was the same quality before allowing it to be launched, instead of both BW:A and EA rushing it through to release so obviously. It's not the same quality. It is a good game but it's left a lot of long-standing Bioware (and even EA) fans cold. And unfortunately we've been saying that we hope it gets implemented 'soon' since launch. A year and a half later not even 'writer soon' covers it. This whole matter has been poorly managed; they still won't confirm what's going on with it. One 50+ NPC flirt opportunity per faction (female for Republic, male for Empire) doesn't make up for over a year of almost total silence. Tell us it's coming or tell us it's not, that's what I say. I'd rather know than not. No, they don't have any requirement to put it in. No, they don't have any requirement to tell us anything. But it's still darn shoddy customer service.
  12. The developers don't either. They can (and do) provide a wide range of content. They only need to decide which parts they'll put in, which they'll leave out and in which order. They certainly don't need to choose between, say, end-game content and SGRAs. They may choose to (which is their right as the makers of the game) but they don't need to. EDIT: If you're actually wondering what I think the majority of players want, I think the player population is too split to agree on any one particular type of content and as cynical as it may be of me I definitely think most groups would claim the majority want what they do. I certainly don't think SGRAs are a priority for the majority of players but I doubt crafting is either. I can't really speak for the majority because I don't frequent most of the other boards. That's what I mean by vetoing things on the basis of disliking them and for no other reason.
  13. Sigh. Now you're just baiting me, but that's okay because your point here is irrelevant. What the majority of players want from the game's development isn't the 'majority' in question. As you well know. And as you consistently avoid addressing, we don't actually have to choose between them. Yeah, but that's not the context in question. With the context of trying to make constructive comments, yes, 'I'm offended' has no real meaning on its own other than 'my feelings don't like that'. Such statements require clarification and further discussion which is, I believe, part of Mr Fry's main point. Vetoing things because you disagree with them and for no other reason is stupid. But without that context it's just a license to be rude. "I've offended you? I don't care. Saying 'I'm offended' is meaningless, Mr Fry says so." No, saying 'I'm offended' isn't meaningless. It expresses a reaction to a subject. It's the function of stopping at 'I'm offended' and offering no other objection that's the meaningless bit.
  14. Yes, but nothing is guaranteed to make them money. Everything is a potential money-maker. Without other changes, maybe, but when did I ever suggest that there should be no other changes? Not once. Indeed, I think that not having to choose between option A and option B is one of the good things about MMOs. I'd like to see that broadened, too - sabacc games, for example, or that space-chess game whose name I keep forgetting. Blizzard has shareholders too. That's why Blizzard and Activision merged in the first place; the shareholders decided it'd be a good move. WoW has millions of subscribers now, yes. It's worked its way up to the position it holds. No reason SWTOR can't do something similar. Although sci-fi MMOs do markedly less well than fantasy MMOs, even with the Star Wars label attached.
  15. Sure, but there's people like that everywhere. I'm talking about the majority. I have issues with it. It's fine if it has a context.
×
×
  • Create New...