View Full Version : Please, Don't Kill This Game!

05-15-2002, 03:46 PM
in all the deiscussion about how to turn JK2 from the saberist friendly Jedi game intended by LEC and Raven into just another Half-Life gun clone with swords and magic, why hasn't anyone mentioned simply doing a "Dark Forces" MOD with no sabers or Force? from the 1st mention of JK2, the dev's have tried pounding the fact into everyone's heads that this is NOT your average FPS shooter. the game was always intended to focus MUCH more greatly on the saber... in fact, they specifically said their intent was to force the players to focus more on the saber and actual "tactics", rather than being tempted to run around shooting everything in sight... now, it seems the majority of "complaints" about the game or the patch have nothing to do with the game itself, but rather what the old JK community thinks they want at any given time... which, of course, is what MOD's are for! leave JK2 alone, and if anytihng needs to be "fixed" in a patch, then let's try to keep it limited to things which are actually "broken" and not try changing all aspects of the game into something it was never meant to be, simply because of a gathering of opinions...

as someone here mentioned before, the whiners are the ones who post the most, while the ones who enjoy the game are too busy playing it, so no matter how many of you here think the game needs to be more "gun friendly", there's no telling how many of us actually enjoy a saber focused game for dedicated saberists. WHERE IS OUR GAME IF THIS IS NOT IT?! stop telling Raven how you think they should have planned the game, and try telling them things which are, or appear to be, actual glitches in the game. Sith-grip in JK was a glitch, but nobody ever tried to fix it but instead labled it a cheat or a cheap move. why is it now, that everyone expects the game to be constructed around this need to be able to shoot people in the back? when was the last time you actually saw a Jedi in a Star Wars movie or novel shooting a rocket launcher at a stormtrooper? i mean, if you're a Jedi, you act like a Jedi. if you don't want to act like a Jedi, then don't play Jedi Knight, or make a Dark Forces MOD where you can all be merceneries and play with your guns...


that's all i ask. don't kill this game or mutate it into a clone of all the other games out there. and if Raven actually allows this small group of the public to do so, then shame on them, as well. if i have seen anything that needs to be fixed, it is the fact that in SP or MP, when using less than 3 stars for Saber Throw, the saber seems to get stuck in mid-air about 3 feet in front of my player... i've seen it happen with others online before the patch, and perhaps for many of you it has never happened or ceased to happen after the patch, but i still have a saber with a mind of its own... not only does it defy the logic of the Force by continuing to float in front of me without being able to drain the last of my mana enough to drop to the ground OR return to my hand so i can continue battling, but it adds the unfair advantage of an "active" saber hovering in front of me, incapable of blocking fire attack, but capable of doing damage to individual opponents or groups. THIS is a glitch, be it is a common glitch, or a rare one... let's try fixing things like this before we start talking about a "need" for grappling hooks...

oh, and STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A SHOOTER GAME! that is something it was NEVER meant to be... tell them, Raven dev's! TELL THEM!

so, with no further ado, i hereby ask the question...



05-15-2002, 03:51 PM
Well it is'nt either.... it's a cross genre, melee and fps... do you have a prob with that. jk1 was leik that so why jsut change it in jk2?

05-15-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Agen_Terminator
jk1 was leik that so why jsut change it in jk2?

Why the change? Because the saberfighting in JK1 was boring, seemingly relied more on luck than skill to win and because they could make it so much more INTERESTING.

I can't understand people who say that the guns in JK1 are so "fun, diverse etc". The guns in that game was like any other shooter at that time (remember that we are talking about a quake-age game here...), and IMHO the game was fun because of the forcepowers, the lightsaber, and the starwars inspired weaponry. Neither was all that well done, but at that time, it was very different and the game at least felt like starwars. The lightsaber and forcepowers made it interesting in the first place. The fact that it was the only good starwars game up until now deserves recognition too. Oh BTW, respect to the space-sims, but they never caught my attention.

I'm with the topic starter, let this game be focused on lightsabers and try ffs to make the duels interesting and fun to play. The guns in this game deserves attention too, and the developers shouldn't neglect them. But this game IS based on starwars, not rambo...

05-15-2002, 04:51 PM
well, Agen_T, i DO have a problem with the public trying to dictate a SABER game into just another guns game, which is why i started this thread... it wasn't because i was so happy with everyone's attitudes towards LEC and Raven's efforts. if you actually read the initial post, or followed the development of the game (i know, not everyone's that into this stuff) then you would realize this was NOT meant to be a balance of guns and sabers, but was ALWAYS intended to tip the scales in favor of the ways of a Jedi, which according to George Lucas mean sabers and Force powers, not blasters and heavy explosives. to remove guns completely would not be good, of course, but to drown the saber for the sake of those who want JK2 to be like JK would be counterproductive to the efforts dictated by Lucas, and followed by LEC and Raven... quite nicely, i might add. so, do i have a problem with guns playing a bigger role and being a bigger "temptation" in JK2? ABSOLUTELY!

thanks for your input, Agen_T, and if you believe guns are the way to go, then more power to you, but if Raven ups the guns or drowns out the saber anymore, i will be greatly disappointed.

cjais, thanks for the support... i hope more of us will try to get the message across to the community, and especially to Raven before the gunners do any real damage to the game.

Spider AL
05-15-2002, 05:33 PM
I have posted a response to this same post in the Post-patch: Yes, I feel cheap... (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=52403&pagenumber=3) thread.

In digest, it's really jingoistic and frankly insensitive to suggest that those (like myself) who love the dynamic of force-aided gunfights are in some way second-class JO citizens. Just because a lot of people (myself included by the way) love sabres only fights, does not mean that gunners should have an excellent, and unique gaming experience taken away from them.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the right to destroy it. One man's nightmare is another man's dream etc, and there will always be sabres only servers.

Now then, I haven't responded to your poll, because in my opinion the patch has made both types of weapons less useful in FFA and CTF. Therefore neither option truly applies.

05-15-2002, 06:12 PM
as expected, your reply was swift and well thought, but the fact is you miss the point i am trying to make. if you try to tell me that LEC and Raven never said this was meant to be a saber friendly game, then you are a fool... and i know you are no fool. if you try to tell me there can be a balance between guns and sabers while still maintaining the intial purpose of the game, then the same applies. i relaize what you and many others think wuld improve the gameplay in probably most situations, and i do not dispute that, which is why i carried this to a new thread, for a new venue of opinions... which is all any thread here truly is.

the fact that you responded by accusing me of trying to cause a split in the community does not surprise me. the fact that you first expressed such "disappointment" in my having an opinion which greatly differed from your own, and that i was willing to express it openly, did catch me off guard... at first. inevitably, all good things must come to an end, i suppose, but that of course has nothing to do with this game, just as the fact that cheap people feel obligated to use cheap moves has nothing to do with the game itself. it is my belief, that regardless of what changes are made to the game, there will always be people who can exploit moves or tactics. THAT is life... the fact that there will always be bad with the good, and to strive to remove all that one considers bad can mean removing the good for many others. opinions are opinions, and game changes regarding opinions are probably best kept in the MODs. let patched be for fixing bugs, and not a method of dictating gameplay. let an individual's honor, as you have always held in such high regards, dictate the way a game is played.

the fact that i don't want changes made to the game which give more, or even equal, weight over sabers is irrelavent, of course, as i always have the option of playing the game with no patches or v1.03... however, if Raven ever gets around to addressing actual "bugs" in the game, then we could be forced to accept ALL the changes being made in upcoming patches, which may have a negative efect for other players. changes are not bad, and i never said guns were bad (in fact, i said it would pretty much suck to take them out, and i believe that), but i did say that there was a plan for this game long before it was released, and that plan was made perfectly clear, and now there seem to be many who disregard the original intent and think THIS game should be changed into something else for the purposes of people who enjoy other games... that, old friend, is waht i mean by the non-essential changes being left out of patches and put where they belong... in MODs.

some will understand my reasoning, and some will not. others will argue for sake of argument, but in the end all that is shown here is opinions, and we are all entitled to our own. i've never complained about getting shot in a guns game, and the fact that i prefer sabers does not mean that i ridicule gunners. i enjoy shooter games, but i prefer a saber game. i never said nobody should make any changes, i simply said we should focus on actual problems before forcing a MODish patch on everyone who simply wants to first fix what's truly broken. in those regards, i am pleased that your e-mail response from Raven was not what you were hoping it would be. perhaps my fears that they will allow the loudest fan to lobby his opinions into the game are moot... i can only hope.

Spider AL
05-15-2002, 07:04 PM
if you try to tell me there can be a balance between guns and sabers while still maintaining the intial purpose of the game, then the same applies.

I hope I am no fool, but I insist that it is my opinion that sabres and guns should be balanced.

If there is a weapon, or a technique which is uber-powerful, there is no reason to use anything else. That much can be seen on any server where people are pull/backswinging their lives away. Without balance, the game is reduced in scope. Who uses the DEMP gun? (electrical) It's rubbish, the bryar is better! If something is not powerful, it becomes dusty and un-used. That's what's happened to sabre combat in FFA, because the backswing wins.

the fact that you responded by accusing me of trying to cause a split in the community does not surprise me

I didn't accuse you of any such thing, for the community has been split since day 1. I see no need to stand on one side or the other though, I'm both a gunner, a sabreist AND a duellist. Proud of it.

And of course I agree with you that grappling hooks, more stances or other moves etc. should not be included. But in 1.02, a seriously addictive and excellent balance was in the FFA game... and post 1.03, it's gone. Restoring what has been lost from the game is anything but extraneous, in my opinion.

And I'm not loud! I'm lucid. :D Much louder people than me around, I hope Raven found my e-mail pleasant and intelligent.

05-15-2002, 09:22 PM
see, now that's the good hearted Spidey i know and love. perhaps you'd have better luck trying a different approach with Raven. you are an excellent spokesperson, as followers of your post-patch thread are certainly aware, and i have no doubt that Raven would take to heart any sound idea put forth which represents the whole community, and not the opinions of individual players. my suggestion to you would be to lobby for Raven to release a new patch which first removes all gameplay/balance changes, essentially returning to v1.02 and then add fixes for actual problems. if we can get the bugs out of the game first, then maybe pushing for balances either way will be less of an issue. after all, as i had said, all i want is a single patch to fix factual problems, then we can get to the fun part of altering the game. i'm a fan of MODs. i admit it. i loved SBX and MOW for JK. in SBX, i loved the sabers... in MOW, i loved the guns, grapling hook, jet pack, and all the things that tunred a Jedi game into a Boba Fett game, but if LEC had released a patch allowing Fett in every JK game, i would have not been happy. patches are for fixing problems, mods are for altering gameplay. let's keep it that way. is that too much to ask?

Lord Sokar
05-15-2002, 09:35 PM
Guns in JK2 SUCKS ASS, big time.

But then again, if you get on a gun-enabled server stocked with grip whores and lots of high platforms (e.g. 'streets'), the simple answer is to back your ass up and find a better server.

05-15-2002, 10:17 PM
well, to be honest, i can't say i think the guns suck. i have to admit that i don't really play mp games for reasons such as, it's hard for me to find servers where i can play my uk friends with stability, and i just don't like playing with people who are more concerned with the scoreboard than they are with their fellow gamers. i guess i am too NON-competitive, as i'd rather lose in a good match than win in a cheap or "easy" one. so, what was my point? oh, yeah... i don't think guns suck, i just like the saber more. i think if (and i know it would never happen) there were no guns in mp games, and all were "sabers only" then the game would lose a lot of appeal, even for me. i like pulling a Han and chasing after someone with a ST-rifle, only to have to tuck and turn when thery manage to outgun me. hell, that's what Star Wars is all about! yeeeehaaaaa! BUT, Jedi Knight2 was meant to be a saberist game, not a gunless game, but one which encourages swordplay... ahhh, your lightsaber... a jedi's weapon... and that sort... i remember how people would complain in JK when i'd be standing with my saber, they'd pull a gun and fire, i'd deflect and pull thier gun, and 9 out of 10 times i'd wait to see if they were willing to face off for a duel... instead, they'd complain that i pulled their weapon, and THAT ruined the mood/game or whatever you want to call it for me... a simple person who wants to play a game with Jedi, about Jedi, where i can act like a Jedi, respond like a Jedi, and get as immersed into this game as i can. if guns were "too" powerful (speaking opinions here, remember) or non-existant, then the opportunity for immersement is gone, as some of us can surely agree... right Spidey? immersion is important in Star Wars games, in my opinion, and i assume in the opinions of LEC and ol' George himself. guns did not seem to be a problem for me in the initial release. in fact, as far as gameplay goes, i had NO problems. my only problems are legitimate glitches, which have to do with game programming. i would love to see the game "fixed" and not broken further... so, if the guns have been neutered, then restore them to v1.02, but still fix the issues that NEED to be fixed...

uh... that was a longwinded explaination of something, i'm sure, but anyways... oh, yeah... as mentioned... if you don't like the server, find a new one. i agree, in the sense that if you don't like the rules or methods allowed or enforced by a host in JK or server in JK2, you find a new one... which for me, because i hate people i guess, means i don't play online unless i specifially know who i'm playing against. to me, that was the whole purpose of joining a clan... being able to play with the right people when and where we wanted...

i guess the servers for JK2 have dwindled away that bond to the community for some, but i look at the game itself and think...

HEY, the Sp is perfect! i love that a bounty hunter can kill me with 1 shot. i like that shadowtroopers are armored so i really ahve to pound them into submission. i like that imp officers are smarter, and troopers are every bit as dumb as they should be. i like all the things that make JK2 a portal for my imagination... not just a way to shoot others. as far as MP, i truly believe that any of us can enjoy the game as long as we play it with the right frame of mind. if guns were truly weakened to the point wherev1.03 sucks for gunners, then there needs to be a way to play v1.02... which again brings us back to the folly of the server system, which is unfortunately part of the Q3 genre's backbone. the Zone's attempt is noteworthy, as JK fans can gather same as they always have, but (blatant immaturity here) the Zone just sucks!

05-15-2002, 11:30 PM
I wont say its too saber friendly, Ill just say it obviously was NOT meant to be a DM. The weapons, while so-so in single player, are just dreadful in a FFA match. I think a GREAT job was done with the lightsaber in making it fun and effective, and I used it almost exclusively in the SP game (short of sniping and a few detonators) and I love to duel online. But the guns...lord the guns, theyre no fun to me. A saber is superior, and fun. A gun...well, my personal fav is the E-11. Fast, relatively powerful, good all around. The repeater is WAY too weak considering how innaccurate it is, the bowcater....well for gods sake it fires a "spray" of five shots, which I have personally found useless, and only use this gun when my blaster is on empty. The flechette weapon is kinda cool, and i love the detpacks (Ive got explosives! wheee)

When I played a FFA a couple times, i told my younger bro something like: the guns suck in this, but its based on Q3 so they figured "what the hell, it wont take anything extra but a dozen maps to make it a multiplayer game, why the f*ck not?" so what we got is a FFA with sucky guns, and a dueling mode with great lightsaber action (if you can get a match with a non-assfigher, that is)

just my take


necca me latre.

05-15-2002, 11:46 PM
I havent read the posts on this thread...but i say that if you want saber fighting...go to a saber only server...if you wana use guns...then by all means go to a server with guns...

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 04:27 AM
This attitude is flawed. By polarizing the game balance and strategy, and tipping of the scales in one direction, a direction which was completely artificial to begin with, the game has lost everything which set it apart. The existence of a guns vs sabers tradeoff is debatable. To claim it AND argue to tip the balance in favor of one side is only detrimental.

Simply put, a good game is about a healthy number of options in available and potent strategy, and a variety of challanges. Balance is not only appreciated, but required to make a good game. This jk2 has a perfect set up for this, in giving a set number of points and requiring players to buy their "options".

That being said, i must admit that i truely love jk2. The only reason for this is the depth of the game. Depth can only exist with balance however. They are one and the same. It also should be said that a balance is always striving to be well, balanced.

And i can say with confidence that while v2 had some minor balance problems in terms of force powers, v3 is completely biased and the unbalanced.

Every time an issue can be polarized and then tipped in one direction, the game depth gets cut in half. There should be an opportunity-cost system, and not a "which is better than which" system. THAT being said, v3 is crap.

A line was drawn between guns and sabers (on what some would argue an already feint line(and i would argue an almost non-existant line)) in v3. Guns are now difficult to use due to ammo shortages and weaker do to the overwhelming power of sabers. Polarized and tipped=stripped.

In order to placate more saberists, offensive force powers were also nipped further placing an emphasis on the importance of sabers as the "primary tool" for offense. To do this unfortunately, meant to "uberfy" the light side. Here in this case, the polarization was already drawn (and previously and integral part of keepin the universal game balance). Polarized and tipped=stripped.

I will not get too into force powers, as the main topic was about guns.

I must admit that I am an ffa player through and through. The addition of private duels in a public game was a very nice nod to all the saberists out there who preferred quiet duels and yet were too chicken **** to go to servers that catered specifically to their desires (the addition of which was another nod at saberists).

I guess what im trying to say can best be described in ironically, a jk 1 analogy. In jk 1, there were two camps, the people in nf bgj, and the people in ff oasis. People in one camp certinly did not feel right in the other camp as the games evolved into exact opposites of each other. In jk2, a big effort was made, and was made well, to allow sabers to be effective on the same board as guns. Even taking a clue from jk1, the game was extremely "saber only fight" friendly as well. And i was personally thrilled and appreciated the efforts that i could see on ravens part to tone down the guns enough to put them in an opportunity-cost system as well. (special kudos to not being able to pick up guns for ammo and handicapping rocket launcher in the ammo dpt.) And saber fighting was never this awesome/fun/effective. (hell i absolutely hated nf battle ground jedi as people had to aim at weird lag points in order to do uber damage with little skill in blocking. but people sweared by it, as i swore by ff oasis.) It finally felt like nf gunners had a home in an ff oasis enviornment. And universally, the balance was almost perfect, as the guns and sabers would theoretically meet somwhere in the middle where the force powers were located. There were some balance issues that needed to be worked out in the deep bowels of the force, however, it was a very very balanced system. I had yet to be unable to take down a gunner with just my saber and a little force.

finally, my impression of this thread was that it was arguing for a more of a jedi game in order for the starwars factor to go up. It argued for the toning down of guns and the toning up of sabers, so that "Jedi were better, as the emphasis should be put," or some such non-sense for the sake of coolness. But "guns shouldnt be completely removed, as those involve part of the coolness too, just paled in comparrison to the saber/jedi." (to me this just says that you like guns as long as you can deflect the bullets and always win in a fight between two good players, but were too chicken **** to say it outright.)

somewhere else it was also stated that that was how the game was meant, unbalanced, but balances should not be adressed, but used as mods. it also went on to say how a fett game was cool, in a mod, but "this game was all about the jedi" [my interpretation of course. there is no way i am going quote hunting on this thread].

What the hell kind of star wars game is that? What kind of "jedi" game would it be if only jedi could only fight other, saber weilding-like jedi? In the movies, they fight non-force using bad guys, and non jedi good guys fight force using bad guys. And you know what, for the most part, the jedis were not gods. Vader couldnt get **** if it wasnt for Fett. Luke and Obi wan would have been caught if it werent for Han, and even Billy D kicks some ass (magic bad guy ass and not) at some point in his pathetic star wars glory.

The bottom line is that, yes this is a gun game with magic powers and swords. But there is an enormous amount to be said of those magic powers and swords.

And the ultimate insight:::::!!!! the sabers are a force power.

the sabers are a force power, and they are integral in keeping the balance of the system as it was currently planned.

i am going to write a paper in the next week outlining exactly what needed to be done t v2 and exactly what nightmare v3 created.

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 01:55 PM
this game is done. i have lost hope, and i am having a very difficult time finding 1.02 servers

05-16-2002, 02:49 PM
(okay, if you are NOT Nathan Wind, then don't bother reading this post unless you are simply bored)

well, Nathan, if i can say nothing else about yur post, it is that we are BOTH long-winded. i am not here to argue whether or not you like the game, or whether or not you ever read the pre-game articles concerning the design of this game. in fact, i don't like to argue, but i like this game, so i defend it... it's what i do. so, let's begin...

first you claim my attitude (not my opinion, but my attitude) is "flawed" by suggesting (and i'm really guesstimating your actual meaning, since it was slightly unorganized and misworded) i wish to "tip the scales" of a game which, i assume you meant, SHOULD be polarized (here, the word implies balance, as the word should, though the game should not). you continue by saying the game's orignal balance (meaning pre-patch?) was a rather "arttificial" attempt, and the game has lost everything it used to have... ok, so does this mean you think post-patch lost all the "artificial" qualities you (...uh, was that like or dislike?) mentioned, or are you refering to the original DF2:JK as having lost something due to JK2? either way, i regret that i do not grasp your meaning. JK2 has, nor ever will, affect the DF2:JK game, and aside from drawing attention away from the older game, JK2 can have no affect on the DF2:JK community. with that said, i will assume that you are NOT refering to the old JK, as that would mean you are here to argue for sake of argument... and your agrument is?

("The existence of a guns vs sabers tradeoff is debatable.")
well, if it's not a debatable issue, then what's all the talk about?

("To claim it AND argue to tip the balance in favor of one side is only detrimental.")
ok, this stumps me, as i cannot make out your vague attempt at what seems to be an argument, but i see as follows... you think to claim that whether or not there should be balance between sabers and guns IS a debatable, but not to the point where somebody could have the opinion that one or the other SHOULD overpower the other. well, i just don't know how to respond to you... i'm sorry... i must be an idiot.

so, we'll continue... in your opinion, the quality of a game is based on its options... well... Max Payne has very few opions built into the game, but has made its mark in its own community via MODs. so, in my opinion, quantity does not equal quality. you mention the renovating "point system", which tells me you may have never played the original DF2:JK, as the player setup was identical, with the exception of your selection of force powers. the point system used to "buy" your options is nothing new, but i will admit that i like the fact JK2 assigns actual values to each level of each power, thus a 1st level grip ability and a 1st level jump ability are not valued the same, nor should they be, as the SW "real life" dictates certain abilities require more focus and training... so grip takes more to "learn" than jumping... okay, so was that something you and i agreed on, or disagreed? it's so hard to tell...

you continue by saying you love JK2 (as do i, we are getting married in June), but only because the balance adds depth, and without balance in weaponry and other offensive/defensive abilities a game has no chance of being good... so, in your own logic, this game MUST be balanced simply because you LOVE it, and you could never love a game which was unbalanced... did i get that right? probably not, but who cares... this is just little old me having fun with someone who seems to love arguing more than intellect. to be totally honest, though, i would save more time by simply cutting/pasting your own comments to show how you contradict yourself so eloquently. but i will do my best to summarize...

you basically seem to think that a Jedi's preferred weapon should NOT be a lightsaber, therefor George Lucas does not know the 1st thing about Star Wars. you also seem to think that any game created must be created with your opinions in mind, or it will not be a good game. does this mean you are God? if so, i know a LOT of people who'd like to talk to you.

you don't want to mention force powers, but i havge no problems with force powers being discussed here. there are many useless compliants surrounding force powers which i'd be more than happy to discuss...
did Han Solo bitch and whine when Vader used Force pull on his gun at Bespin? then why would anyone in a Jedi game think they can point a gun at me and i should have no power to "disarm" them? why does a gun have to have that power over a Jedi, when it never has before? WHY, DAMNIT?! nobody can answer that. everyone either agrees or disagrees, but nobody can tell me why they think a JEDI game should basically castrate the main character's JEDI abilities?! if all these changes you mentioned were put into the SP game, would they be improvements or not? if you have something to say, then say it... don't be a chicken-***

oh, i'm sorry, it's all of US who are the chicken-****'s and you are simply God.

which leads us to the VERY condescending, arrogant, and snobbish remark of...

("The addition of private duels in a public game was a very nice nod to all the saberists out there who preferred quiet duels and yet were too chicken **** to go to servers that catered specifically to their desires")

first off, i'm surprised i'm not too chicken-**** to say this, but i think you're just plain silly. OH GEE, the game dev's gave all of us true JEDI fans a slight meaningless "NOD" while an indifferent "one shooter should be like the next, and this game is just another shooter" like yourself has to stop and scratch their heads, trying to remember which game they're playing... "i forgot, is this Quake or Half Life?"

your continuing comments only amplify my conviction of your self absorbed ego. you say everyone who plays DF2:JK (or jk1, as you call it, which implies you played it only after getting the collector's edition of JK2) is either a full force gunner, or a no force saberist. neither myself, nor any of the friends i played the game with, fit into either of those two categories. this game IS about variety, but not to the point that a stormtrooper should have an equal chance against a Jedi. my meaning? if a person in JK or JK2 wants to face me, with myself using full force and a saber against them with a blaster and no force, then they had better be an EXTREMELY superior combatant if they expect to beat me. there should not be a "balance" which allows them to overpower a Jedi. if gunners want to face gunners, it should be a fair, balanced match, but Star Wars has NEVER emphasized a blanace between guns and sabers. SOME guns cannot be deflected, but a Jedi, even a Padawan, has the ability to do serious damage to groups of heavily armed soldiers... why can't this game be the same way, since it IS a JEDI game? your attitude is that we should be GLAD that sabers are effective AT ALL against guns!

hell, you make a lightsaber sound like an aluminum baseball bat!

("finally, my impression of this thread was that it was arguing for a more of a jedi game in order for the starwars factor to go up.")

YAY! somebody got the message! and i thought you weren't all that bright.

i NEVER said i thought sabers should be MORE powerful than they initially were, or that guns should be LESS powerful. in fact, i said REMOVE the newest tweaks, go back to the original game, and SIMPLY FIX THE BUIGS before doing anything else... and beyond that... i DO think the SABER should have GREAT advantage over GUNS because THAT IS STAR WARS, and this IS a JEDI game! how much clearer can i make myself?

("The bottom line is that, yes this is a gun game with magic powers and swords.")

ok, go write your "paper" on whatever you think you know about Star Wars and its fans, because you seem to be nothing more than a Star Wars basher. a saber is a saber, and the ability to use it more effectively would be through use of the force. stay in school, maybe one day it will pay off.

05-16-2002, 03:04 PM
yeah, so polls in web forums are about as useful as polls in "democratic" elections. if everyone is not heard, then we cannot know what everyone thinks, and we are left to try to cater to the possible minority, simply because some of us (myself included) won't shut up. beyond that, i'd like to point out that there has been a consistent 3:1 opinion that this SHOULD be a saber friendly game.

Spider AL
05-16-2002, 03:12 PM
Hmm, just a point Anty, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to defend here... The people that dislike 1.03's effect on FFA tend to agree that the sabres are now LESS powerful than before, making 1.03 less sabre friendly, surely?

I personally am lobbying for both sabres and guns to be powerful weapons, whereas now, as things stand, only the guns are useful in FFA...

Unless one backswings. :)

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 05:32 PM
Holy Smokes! This is sure becoming an egotistical, inarticulate thread.

We are BOTH certainly long-winded and egotistical, that is for damn sure.

I must say that I had just as much trouble wading through your post as you did my post. Your criticism of my post is ironically where you articulate yourself the least. You smugly accuse me of being "misworded" and "unorganized" in a laughable display of "guesstimation." I know what you meant in your initial paragraphs. You know what you meant in your initial paragraphs. But can you honestly reread what you have written with a clear head and not stumble and be confused in several places?

I will admit right off, that I made some major spelling mistakes, and that some of my points were vague.

Unfortunately it appears that my overall point was completely misunderstood.

I will say one thing, and that is that we both love this game.

I guess I just need to make myself clear on a few major points.

My whole point of the post is in my first paragraph. You missed some key verbs, and that totally skewed your understanding of what I had written.

After your first little smug paragraph, you shot yourself in the foot.

The quote you used is one of the main, if not THE main, focus of my post. Your interpretation was a swing and a miss.

To understand the next sentence, you needed to understand what the "it" was, that I referred to.

I made 2 HUGE arguments in 2 sentences. You missed them both.

I cannot stress the importance of paying attention to the verbs in those sentences.

Ok, after the initial difficulties we had at an understanding, the post becomes much much more clear.


GAME: if a game weren’t competition, than it would not be a game at all. It would be make-believe.

I say that a game must be balanced in order for competition to exist.

Taken together, it can be argued that imbalances equate to make-believe. I would assert this to be truth.

(Dark force powers in v03 are make-belief)


Polarizing means making things complete opposites of each other.

I will put it to you this way.

I assert that there was only a fake line between sabers and guns in v02. This comes from the plain and simple fact that these two things are not the only aspects of the game. Hell, a MUCH MUCH better approach would be to compare sabers and each gun that was available in the game individually. Even this is ludicrous as there are still other aspects of the game, although mainly, it is force powers. And another thing to consider is other people on the map with different guns sabers and force powers as well.

An in depth game would balance all the different aspects and choices of that game. By drawing broad lines between two aspects of the game, (ones which don’t even necessarily relate to each other directly in terms of the general and overall balance scheme) and then discriminating is a big mistake.

It is like making policy decisions to deal with specific problems.

By polarizing, you make a gray issue black and white.

In my third sentence, I said the "existence" of such a black and white division was "debatable."

And yet you assert that there is one in this game.

And then you advocate a policy (or should I say support one, as it has already been executed in v03) that tips the scales to your one "white" side in a "gray" argument.

The fact of the matter is, in v02, a tradeoff between sabers and guns never existed!!!!!!! Hell, SABERS ARE A FORCE POWER! The fact that sabers are a universal weapon makes at all that much more akin to lightning.

It all comes down to Universal balance between different force powers and different guns, (sabers being the primary force power of course).

By tipping scales in a balance argument that only exists in your head (or at least is flat out wrong in its division lines) is a joke.

To argue for the creation of one is arguing for a new game entirely. (Like a force lightning vs. guns game)

The big question is, in a game, why would anyone use anything other than what wins, other than for make-believe purposes?

If guns were to become a detriment to anyone who used them, why would anyone use them? Do they become anything other than make-believe in competition? Do they become anything other than make-believe in a game? Was there ever just the one issue of guns vs. sabers, or was that just some gamer’s attitude (a flawed one), that tried to assert a limitation of the whole of the game depth into a black and white guns/sabers tradeoff?

The guns might as well be completely removed from the game, as they are virtually removed from the game now. (ironic, making them akin to lightning in terms of usefulness) In the game, are they anything other than for make belief purposes now? You said yourself that guns should not be removed from the game, yet you vehemently assert that there should be an imbalance in the game, one that favors sabers. That’s hypocritical, and frankly, makes no sense. If it’s to be a sabers game, make it one. If it’s a sabers and guns game, make it one. If its a sabers OR guns game, and you win by picking sabers, than its a sabers game. Balance is depth. Imbalance is make belief depth.

Your other comments are somewhat laughable, and egotistical. I will not say that mine are not though either.

this game has many many nods to jk1, and it is obvious that they took some clues and insight from it to make this game, ones which are appreciated. Its just silly to even think that they did not look and play the original jk extensively to get a feel for how it played. And no, I did not only play jk1 after it was renamed in the collectors edition. I always just called it jk. This is called jk2 jedi outcast, so why bother dicking around with acronyms.

And yes, I will assert that the game was indeed divided into 2 camps, at least at the higher(est) level of gaming. FF bgj was a game set up by intermediate players for intermediate players and no FF gunner or nf saberist worth their salt would touch it (other than the ff gunner who would go there to own and infuriate)
as for the bat comment, im sorry, I meant to make it sound like lightning or grip. You are making more “guesstimations”

ugh, again with the imbalances. If a game wanted to be sooooo in the theme of starwars jedi that it rendered everything else useless, then “everything else” (meaning depth, come on, stay with me) would be “useless” (meaning make-believe/pointless).

Imagination= art (or crap depending on your tastes)
Balanced competition=game
Game + imagination= themed game
Themed game – balanced competition = crap (or art depending on your tastes)

anyway, my final comments about this game is that the patch made a new shallow crappy game by taking away depth from the first one. Nobody has to worry about dark side or guns anymore because they are effectively make believe

my final comments to you are that you need to read more carefully and not be so smug. Don’t assume that lack of understanding equates to vagueness and vice versa.

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 05:44 PM

the game shoud be taken back to version 1.02 and fix those bugs rather than the poorly done overhaul that 1.03 did.

Spider AL
05-16-2002, 07:01 PM
Hmm, this altercation is in danger of becoming childish... which would not help anyone's cause.

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 07:42 PM
i am willing to defend each and everything i said

Nathan Wind
05-16-2002, 09:08 PM
whats a bump?

Nathan Wind
05-17-2002, 01:38 AM
seriously, i dont know

05-17-2002, 04:40 AM
Nathan, sorry, but i do not know to which "bump" you refer. as for mew being smug, i admit i am. i am more than slightly upset at the so called Star Wars community deciding that a loud fan's opinion means more than that of George Lucas, the creator of this wonderful storyline. whether or not he makles more money each day than i'll see in my life, means nothing. i resepct his vision, and i respect his right to dictate that decision. i was looking forward to nothing more than i was JK2. it was a dream come true when i got it, and i loved it... greatly. now, i see a fantastic team of developers, who actually CARE about what people think of their games and want to give the best support they can, taking a beating after barely a month of the game's release. everybody and their dog think they know how to make this the "perfect" game for everybody... it is a common attitude, but it is not as it appears. those who would wish to change another's creation for their own purpose over all else's, are usually people who feel they cannot change things in their own lives, and need to grab hold of something. it applies to two other relatively recent incidents...
1) it was reported that George Lucas was planning to release JK2 a few days earlier in Australia then the rest of the market... why? because he wanted to thank the local community for all their support and tolerance and him coming in and filming Episode 2. god bless you, george. i think you ahve a great heart. unfortunately, a loud enough portion of the rest of us felt differently, and complained loudly. in the end, the release date for JK2 was moved forward, and the Australian date was moved back to match. yes, i got the game a couple of days earlier, but Lucas was denied an opportunity to do something nice, just because it upset people who had nothing better aobut which tp be upset.
2) again, George Lucas is criticized by immature "supporters" after a press release announces that NSync was granted a near invisible cameo in Episode2... why? because Geoirge Lucas loves his kids. in Episode1, he reportedly designed the Gungans with his children's interests in mind. i am quite sure his family loved Jar Jar Binks, but what has the rest of us had to say? so waht happended to NSync? people whined so much, he felt compelled to announce their removal from the film. personally, i hope he left them in in a way which nobody would know... in the same way which nobody would have noticed in the first place, but just knowing "they" were there was too much. i'm not a fan of boy bands or girl of the week pop stars like britney, and when i first heard NSync had a role in Episode2, i admit it... i clenched my teeth and groaned. my imagination is rampant enough to imagine the worst possible scenes with NSync replacing a cantina band or worse, but when their actual involvement was announced, i was releaved and no longer felt like i would be faced with some obscene sillines... that's what Monty Python is for.

so, do i have a chip on my shoulder, now that i see the same attitudes effecting this game? yeah, i think so. am i smug with people who come on here, half read what is written, disregard the notion that "some will argue for sake of argument", and begin telling people how "wrong" their opinions are? absolutely... it's a free forum. if people don't like what i have to say, they don't have to read it. i'm not broadcasting over loudspeakers outside your window.

i have never, not once that i recall, claimed that i wanted guns "nerfed" in any way, and certainly not removed from the game. i never said sabers need to be beefed up. all i ahve said is let Raven and Lucasarts complete the vision that ol' George set before them. that is what they want to do, but the feedback from the community is nothing more than a bunch of gripes about what they have done wrong. i would rather play the sp game or the custom "ladder" than online, with or without the patch. i am, not now, nor ever was, debating what i think should be put into a patch. i am only saying what to leave out of it, because many of us feel it is not broken, and to fix it for others could end up ruining it for us... why does my opinion matter more than yours then? it doesn't. i even said, politely, to the first opposer on this thread, that all opinions should be heard, and his voice was as important as mine, and more power to his cause if it differs from mine. he never said i was wrong in my opinion that the dev's, and certainly George himself, should have the say in what this game should be... but, we return to many others, who feel if enough people with a view different from the makers of the game can organize and lobby against the establishment in a "million gamer march" then Lucas should bend over and kiss their behinds like he has in the past... or at least gives them the impression of doing so. as i said, i hope NSync were still in Episode2. i saw it, but not them. i can think of scenes where they could ahve been in disguise, but i will not discuss the movie this soon after release. all i will say is Yoda received a standing ovation in our theater. as for the JK2 release date, i'm pleased that "all i got" was a small lapel pinwith my preordered game, whereas the Australian package reportedly came with a t-shirt and poster. good for them, and good for George. i've heard mention, though i have not read up to confirm, that Raven is debating whether or not to drop the issue of future patches. how ironic (yes, the word is about to be used correctly) it would be, if those who pushed so hard to "fix" everything they thought was wrong, were the ones responsible for Raven refusing to TRULY fix any bugs in the future. if they have had enough flack from their "fans" then who could blame them? they went through the same hassle, though i can't say to the same degree, after releasing StarTrek-Voyager:EliteForce. many complained that ehir "abilities" with the Q3 game were lacking, or they were simply inadequate level designers, because certain people did not like the size of the maps in the game. i played the game, Sp and MP, and enjoyed both aspects, though i still dislike people and thus rarely played MP. Raven's response was that they were given strict guidelines in level design, which allowed them to detail specific areas of the ships in great detail, while keeping other areas "hidden". i guess people expected to be able to walk through the entire ship, and weren't allowed, so they felt compelled to complain... sound familiar?

i think Raven did a great job with the Q3 engine in Voyager:Elite, and i think they did an even better job with it for JK2. CHEERS to Raven, i say... CHEERS! still, i DO have issues with my game, and with the long awaited purchase of a new video card, many have been nullified. the only real "improvement" i see in the 103 patch is the allowance of EAX audio, which instantly fixed a stuttering bug in my soundtrack. YAY, the patch fixed something... but, to fix a problem, i had to accept changes from impatient, irrational people. the notion that DFA was a "cheap" move caught on quickly. i, myself, referred to it as the 1-hit-wonder. so, the patch toned it down, which led to the immediate realization that there was ANOTHER move with the same power... so now the argument that everyone was "forced" to use 1 move in order to score, is turned around to "ok, so we used to have 2 devestating moves, and we got rid of one, so now lets get rid of the other, because everybody is NOW using THIS one move". if the backstab were patched, what would be next on the list? how long before we are simply standing around slapping each other? would force spitting be too powerful? am i smug? yes, i am. am i here to debate what should be changed in the game? no, i am not. i am here to discuss what should be "fixed" in the game, before any more changes are made.

let Lucas have his fun. let him live his dream. let Raven's reputation live up to their potential. my biggest concern is that PC games will become a thing of the past, with console games leading the path... and i am NOT fond of console systems. i want companies like Lucasarts to WANT to make games for the PC Gamers out here. i want Raven to get more jobs, and i REALLY want them to keep wanting to help us make this game better... not in our own individual images... that would be most futile... but in the image of George's dream. it's his, let him have it. this game is his way of giving us the chance to live a little part of his dream, but all that can be said is that his dream is flawed. how sad for us, that we cannot be more accepting of what is offered.

oh, and Nathan, i never criticize for spelling or "typos", as i make more than my share, but if you direct content at me in a condescending manner, i will reply in whichever way strikes me at the moment, and i am a VERY moody person. i think your first post was quickly thrown into an "arena" with little purpose, so i responded accordingly. your second post was written at a much more careful pace, though you still seemed to miis the reason i started this post/poll, even though you hit it dead on in your first post...

i want JK2 to be a Jedi game, and not just a shooter with swords and magic, as everyone seems to think such a game would be more "realistic" or, even worse, allow them to score more points at a quicker pace... how many people can i kill in one minute? well, i'd be dissapointed in any saberfight lasting less than a minute, so a game where i was making 3-6 kills per minute would be meaningless to me, unless it was through use of guns or just getting VERY lucky by jumping into a group with my saber... now, you may want to say luck would have nothing to do with it, because a backswing could wipe out however many with one blow, but i say this...

good people make for a good game, and cheap people make for a cheap game. if you get me with a DFA or backstab in a fight, so what? if that's all you use, then you're not worth my time, because it is YOU (not you personally, just generalizing my dramatization, because i'm bored) who is ruining the game for me, and not the fact that the move is available. pre-patch, the jedi trainer bot was quite aquainted with the DFA move, and sued it excesively, but it was nothing i could not evade through moving out of the way. the fact that a "real life" person is more effective has nothing to do with their decision to "abuse" a move because they can't stand seeing their name drop from the top... even in a game against friends. the only thing worse, is when they decide it would be better to hound Raven into removing the moves they feel get the most points in the shortest time, when it is quite possible that DFA and Backstab were inteded to compliment and counter each other. now we'll never know, unless we all play 102, which for me means giving up the EAX sound fix and regaining my garbled soundtrack... yeah, that's what i call "encouragement from the community."

Spider AL
05-17-2002, 11:47 AM
i am more than slightly upset at the so called Star Wars community deciding that a loud fan's opinion means more than that of George Lucas, the creator of this wonderful storyline.

Erm... I have no clue of the depth of George Lucas' involvement in the development of Jedi Outcast... But, something tells me it was minimal. Since he doesn't even approve novelisation storylines which his company sanctions as canon, one can assume that he doesn't really mind about their content. It's quite possible he'd look at Jedi Outcast and say "Hmm, that's nothing like the way I'd do it." But personally I think Lucas is irrelevant. What I want, and it's only me talking here, is a well-balanced game.

You can say what you like about backswing usage being a matter of choice, but then... you haven't played large scale FFA much, if at all, so you can't possibly have experienced the negative effects the move has on the dynamic of a match. Once one person starts using it, others are forced to keep up.

Maybe you don't care about the score, and that's your choice. But the score dictates who wins, and winning is part and parcel of the game. As you know, I bought this game and trained in the game, in order to win. I was certainly not "perfecting my skill" for spiritual purposes, that's for sure.

And it's just not possible for someone to play a certain way in a tournament, and a different way in a normal game. I'll tell you why; it's because, for advanced players, the act of playing is a button you push inside your head. It's subconcious. You turn it on, leave it chugging away and when you wake up ten minutes later you find you've won the game. If I were to play all my public games without using backsweep, alt-fire on the repeater, pull or absorb, when it got to a real tournament... I wouldn't be able to use any of those things effectively!

But this is neither here nor there. In my opinion 1.02 was better balanced than 1.03. You don't play a lot, so I understand if that statement simply has no relevance to you... but it's my opinion.

am i smug with people who come on here, half read what is written, disregard the notion that "some will argue for sake of argument", and begin telling people how "wrong" their opinions are? absolutely... it's a free forum.


Well that's not good mate. Remember what I told you about this forum being about making a good show of things? Well people ain't going to take your arguments seriously if you not only "half-read" posts... but also admit it! :p Secrecy, subterfuge and machiavellian stuffs! That's the secret.

i have never, not once that i recall, claimed that i wanted guns "nerfed" in any way, and certainly not removed from the game. i never said sabers need to be beefed up.

Well that's fine... but a lot of people feel that 1.03 has disempowered the sabres in FFA, making guns the only useful option... unless you want to backswing. But, even guns are a problem, as the ammo's lowered, we get a lot of campers on servers now.

i am, not now, nor ever was, debating what i think should be put into a patch. i am only saying what to leave out of it, because many of us feel it is not broken, and to fix it for others could end up ruining it for us...

But, my old friend, you do not play a lot of FFA or CTF against a large number of foes, online. At least, last I heard. The people who are rationally debating for change, DO. So to an extent, we are qualified. And, I'm glad you enjoy the game the way it is, but a lot of us don't. And we're not happy about that.

has nothing to do with their decision to "abuse" a move because they can't stand seeing their name drop from the top...
good people make for a good game, and cheap people make for a cheap game.

If someone uses the move on me, I will, use the move on them. I will NOT allow them to win. That's just the way it is friend, and accusations of cheapness won't change it.

You know, I spent a long time discovering these moves. The game was all new to us, if you'll recall. The first few games I used the DFA in, nobody knew enough about it to call it, or even think it, cheap. As soon as I realised that it was cheap, I didn't use it. Unless someone used it on me, when I'd use it on them. Same goes for Backswing really.

Also, any claim that "there'll always be cheap moves, so why bother fixing them?" doesn't wash. In JK1 for example, Sithgripping/Supergripping was the only truly cheap move I discovered in my three years of playing the game.

Furthermore, in 1.02, sabres were powerful enough that I could win an FFA, EVEN when my most skilled rival was using nothing but DFA, by hitting people normally. So the balance was better.

And finally you are consistently accusing those of us who want to balance the game better of trying to "destroy the vision of a sabre friendly game." Well if you played more FFA, you'd realise that the game is imbalanced against sabreists at the moment.

05-17-2002, 04:18 PM
aye, i admit to being a bitter anti-social, as the past 3 decades has taught me that those who shout the loudest, rarely have much to say, and those remain quiet often have the best intentions. thus is the cause, in my opinion, of many problems in human life. tis why Bush and Bin Laden are such "well known" figures. tis why, aside from the Pope, the most "well known" religious figures are usually money/power hungry evangelists... in the meantime, the people who actually try to help others are too busy helping to climb up on a soap box. there are plenty of good people in the world, but many never speak up. perhaps that is every bit as bad as those who speak out in hopes of personal gain, even if it means a personal loss for another. the same idea was brought forth long ago, when Buddhism reached Japan. the "old" way, was the belief that enlightenment was obtained, and the goal complete, upon an individual's passage into Nirvana. the old evolved, through the human desire to help others, into the "new" idea, that true enlightenment is not complete when one finds it for theirself, but only after they spend time and effort trying to help others find "the way". so, which idea is right? who knows... perhaps neither. should people go out of their way to help others, or should we simply be concerned with ourselves? who knows? life never came with a "how to" book, regardless of how you regard religious scriptures. we are left to do what we feel is right, if we so choose, and i feel that defending the initial release of this game is important, so i am here...

now, i guess i can reiterate the point that i am not defending any changes made in the 103 patch, except the addition of EAX support, as this is the ONLY change which actually "fixed" anything in the game for me. i am not trying to push to "fix" anything which is not broken. there are still a few, although likely minor, bugs to be cleaned out of the game. i think that is not a hard statement to which we can mostly agree, but the idea that we must "alter" the game to ft the mindsets of the players before addressing the "technical" issues... well, it's jsut beyond me, i guess. i would prefer to see the game finished before it is picked apart. i would like to never have a saber perpetually "hang" in mid air after being thrown, but will i ever get that fix? now, it is most likely i will not. why? because more people were concerned with being able to dictate or lobby ideas of how the game should have been designed from the start. this is not good. at the same time, those who would push for alterations before fixes probably feel like they are doing what is "best" for the community, but who can say he/she has the voice of everyone who does not speak?

i have more interest in the pointless poll then the conversations on this page. i have said, more than once, that my "discussions" (yes, i use the wrod loosely here) are born from boredom as much as anyting else. i don't live on the boards, but i glance at them once or twice a day. i pay most attention to the nubmers, which have now gone from a 3:1 support to a 5:1 support in favor of a saber friendly (not "saber only") game. okay, so paying attenion to polls can be construed as being pathetic, so i will admit to spending a little time each day being pety for the purpose of... hell, what is my purpose? i forgot!

i like that the polls get more attention than the boards. i like that not everyone has to write a speech in order to express their own opinions as to whether they feel this is a "shooter" or a "sabers" game. some may call for a balance, but who can say what the balance should be? which of us "non-dev" fans should have the most say in the matter? i don't want my opinions to change the game from what i see as the original goal. my only real complaint with Raven was the decision to second-guess theirselves and implement the JK style of Light/Dark powers over their initially intended use of the "acroos the board" MotS system. this is a game about, basically, a rouge Jedi/mercenery... YES, this means Kyle uses guns! i have already said i like the guns, but i don't want them to have to be a huge focus for the game. considering tha "fact" that Raven and Lucasarts "warned" everybody that this was going to be a "different" game, i don't think anyone should have the voice or influence to be able to change this game into another Q3 clone.

did George, himself, lay down the plans for this game? i doubt it, as he was a bit more busy making a movie. did he create the Jedi foundation? yes, he did. i guess the only way i can make my point any differently is through a hypothetical...

Star Wars: Master Yoda (pc game)! but wait, Yoda is a die-hard jedi, who rarely uses a saber, uses no dark force powers, and (i'm guessing) would NEVER use a rocket launcher... so who would ever want to play the game? how long before the "competitive" arena decided Yoda needed to be able to lay down trip-mines or spray a group of opponents with a heavy repeater? "if i can't turn this character into myself, then why would i want to play it?" attitudes, in my opinion, are not what is "best" for the community.

i was given an answer to one of my main questions, so i'll take a very brief moment to discuss it...

MODs, as pointed out to me, are less likely to ahve a place in the competitive arena. okay, i can see the logic in that. so, the idea of a Dark Forces MOD would be less than accomodating for the competitive gamers (who have as much right to a good game as the rest of us). so...

how about a Dark Forces expansion pack...

no force, no sabers, no Jedi... add more guns, explosives, or whatever a die-hard merc (which is all Kyle was back then) would want to throw at a group of stormtroopers. i would buy the game, i would play the game, i would most likely enjoy the game, but i would NEVER say "this would be BETTER if it had sabers and force powers". i would appreciate the game for what it is. in the same sense, i would not mind an updated Q3 based version of SotE, either. another non-Jedi game. to push to make JediKnight2 into a "balanced" saber/guns game goes agaisnt the idea of a Jedi game. Jk was "balanced" in the sense that the saber was no more or less powerful than a blaster. my favorite weapons in JK, in order, were the saber, the st-rifle, the repeater, and the rail-detonator. i enjoyed the guns, but prefered the saber. gee... i just can't say that enough, but people respond as if i'm a "gunner" basher because i don't want JK2 to be a "shooter" game.

we all wanted something different from this game, i suppose, and we can't all be made happy... so far we can mostly agree that removing the nerfs and tweaks from the 103 patch would be a good start... right? leave in the EAX support, fix the Saber-Throw and Taunt issues, and give the public a little time to absorb what was offered before declaring a crusade to alter it. the first patch, in my opinion, simply tried to do too much too soon, because the community has, more often than not, expressed their need for haste... which, as we all know, makes waste.

"cheapness" is an issue which is based solely on opinion. my calims that certain individual may have been too drawn to a "cheap" move comes not only from his own declarations, but from personally witnessing the use of DFA excessively in a clan recruiting/try out game against a potential member. for what reason could this person have had to use a move, decreed "cheap" by himself, so often in a "try out" for a new recruit? what does that say about the player? what does that say about the group? what does that say to the guy standing in the corner wondering why an honorable Jedi would feel the need for such a display... okay, so nobody here is an actual Jedi, but i play the game so i can PLAY as a JEDI! we are all childish if we are here to play games, but neither "childish", nor "passionate", necessarily translates into "immature".

there is an old cliche... it's not who wins or loses, it's how you play the game... waht a great attitude, i say... but there are others who think "score dictates victory" for all, because games are about scoring, and not about the way you play. in sports, do we ahve the same attitude? should an ice-skater be allowed to drop kick another just so they can get a higher score? if an ice-skater lobbied to allow "full contact distractions" in competition, simply so they could throw tomatoes on the ice during anothers performance, would that skater be regarded as a "leader" or simply a cheap, self absorbed, over-competitive "waste of time"?

okay, so i don't care about the score. that's my right. somebody else DOES. that's their right. now, who's to say which of us , if either, has the right to the most influence over what this game should be, or how it should be played? neither, i say. i don't want to be a leader. i just want a good game, whether it is against friends or simply bots, depends on those who play the game, and not the game itself. so, that is my downfall, i guess. i don't care about competition, i care about having fun, therefor my opinion of this game means nothing.

whether or not i put on a "good show" for the public in these forums means nothing to me. as i said before, i waste time writing, but am only interested in the opinion of waht others think of this game... should it be a Jedi game, or just a guns/swords/magic game? i get what i want to know from the top of the page, and anything below that is probably best fit to line the bottom of a bird cage. i'm not here to make friends, or enemires, but i am here to say what i believe. i say it, people don't like it, they respond, i respond because i have nothing better to do for a few minutes.

Spider AL
05-17-2002, 04:40 PM
the idea that we must "alter" the game to ft the mindsets of the players before addressing the "technical" issues... well, it's jsut beyond me

Let's be clear, the patch was what "altered" the gameplay. I for one just want to see certain positive aspects of 1.02 restored, such as more useful sabres.

from personally witnessing the use of DFA excessively in a clan recruiting/try out game against a potential member. for what reason could this person have had to use a move, decreed "cheap" by himself, so often in a "try out" for a new recruit?

AHA! Here lies the rub, you've finally come out and said something to shed light on your dark and mystery-enshrouded reasons for starting this argument.

To answer your "hypothetical-esque" question, the hypothetical person may well have been using the technique to see if the potential member would catch on and use a counter-attack to this one technique. The person in question may never have caught on, the penny may never have dropped, and the hypothetical person may have concluded that the hypothetical prospective member was insufficiently adaptable to join the hypothetical clan.

Just a hypothetical answer mind you.

The hypothetical person in question may well be wondering currently why the observer didn't ask the hypothetical person after the game for the reasons behind his single-move. There was plenty of hypothetical opportunity. Instead the observer is currently posting on some public forums about this hypothetical situation, and refusing to discuss it anywhere else.

The hypothetical person might be quite nonplussed by this, having thought that the observer was much more mature, having known them for almost four years now.

to push to make JediKnight2 into a "balanced" saber/guns game goes agaisnt the idea of a Jedi game.

Actually, as I've said many times (and you haven't responded at all to this point mind you) The game is currently imbalanced AGAINST sabres. They are LESS USEFUL in a FFA and CTF game, than guns. So balancing the game would make it MORE of a Jedi game, not less.

should an ice-skater be allowed to drop kick another just so they can get a higher score?

Wow! That might actually make ice-skating a less tedious sport!

would that skater be regarded as a "leader" or simply a cheap, self absorbed, over-competitive "waste of time"?

I presume you're referring to me, at least inclusively. Frankly I'm disgusted at the insults, a lot like tomatoes, you've been throwing at me in this thread. (Indirectly or not, they're offensive remarks.)

Never mind though, I'll get over the feeling of being slapped in the face, and if you want to discuss this like a pair of adults instead of on the "bicker-board of doom," My door is always open.

May the Force be with you, my old friend.

Nathan Wind
05-20-2002, 04:45 AM
wow, im offended and disgusted.

are you done with your soap box hero worship?

this was just crap.

i dont even know how to respond. it took me 4 attempts to read past your misplaced hero worship to actually get to the end of your post. and all in all , both posts show how much of a petty person you are. i cant believe you think you think you can dismiss me or spider like that. if george lucas is this god you make him out to be, i seriously doubt you are his prophet. you do not know anything about his intentions.

hell, i would say episode 2 doesnt even stay true to his intentions.

to illustrate what you are trying to argue (and what im against), its like buying a painting from an artist, only to have him, years later, come inside your house and totally paint over your favorite part of his artwork under the guise of "improvement". this new thing was what he meant after all.

at least lucas put "special edition" after he made those changes to his original movies. if he didnt make it a new product completely, it would have been the same thing.

it is stealing.

at what point does the owner loose control over his art? the moment of purchase. then nobody should get credit, nor be able to alter the artwork in anyway. if it is, its stealing. thats my argument.

you are an as s.