Sundown

Having power available for better graphics doesn't somehow mean that gameplay will necessarily be worse. Nor does having a system with lesser capabilities mean that gameplay will somehow magically improve and be inherent to the system. It's not as if Nintendo putting worse hardware in their next box and settling for worse graphics somehow translates to effort towards how great their games are going to be. A lesser system does mean you can't have both in the same box, at least compared to more powerful platforms. The whole concept of platforms "trading" worse graphics for better gameplay is marketing spin to cover for a less capable system. Sure, developers might be more motivated to polish substance over style on a system they know can't compete in looks... but in the console wars, I've found that the availability of good gameplay depended more on which and how many developers signed on to develop for a console than the console itself. Of course Nintendo has some of the greatest game designers and teams locked up tight. But the quality of their games certainly isn't by merit of their systems' lackluster power. If they produced a box that looked 10 times better, their games would be just as good. And much more compelling visually. -Al

I'm obsessed with fixing his hair. Someone punch me if I start lisping or saying "fabulouth."

Other than the problems mentioned... his hair... it's way too "poofy". Feels like they need to slick the sides back much more. Otherwise his do just looks to big, and makes him look smaller and less imposing than he should. If I remember right, Christopher Reeve's hair was also slicked back when he made the transformation to Superman. Seriously, put your fingers up on the sides of his head and cover part of his mop. Instantly looks a whole lot more like Supes. -Al

I just always thought he did it largely for amusement and effect, and stuck them regular words things in so it's at least still comprehensible. Maybe because I can manage to get through about half his newsposts before my eyes glaze over, so it tickles me a little. Although now that you mention it, it does seem like he relies on that trick an awful lot. But occasionally Tycho's writing hits comedy gold. Like the old post about poisonous horse chestnuts Gabe featured when he was given reigns to the news section while Tycho was away. Probably picked it because it was the only one he could actually understand. -Al

As a long time player, I'd caution you to wait until after the Combat Upgrade, and wait a month or so for reviews and info on how everything fell out. They are changing some of the presentation and much of the gameplay, and much of the new stuff feels or looks unpolished, force-fit, or decidedly un-Star Warsy. Waiting might help you get a better idea of what you'll actually be paying for. It won't be this game that's on servers right just now. -Al

That was beautifully done! I always thought it was done for comedic effect. As effectively demonstrated here. I don't think Tycho is taking himself seriously. And always just assumed that we shouldn't either. *shrug* -Al

and the award for "most pointless post of the day" goes to none other than...... LADIC! My cat's breath smells like cat food. Actually, seriously, that's the first thing I thought of reading the title. A Conan O'brien MMORPG. O_o -Al

Hah. Do yours anyway. I wanna see.

Captain's... Log... Stardate... two.... three... fiv--

Blasphemy. Ackbar kicks butt. Even if he's a walking, talking appetizer that goes well with marinara sauce. -Al

Wow, well said. That's what sucked me into TOS as a kid, even when it looked visually boring and silly, and I never really intended to like it. To be fair, Picard had a few diplomatic moments that didn't entirely involve techno-jargon silliness. -Al

My goodness. The PSA was creepy. Serious creepy factor. Not to mention more corny than I even imagined it'd be as an RT fan. And the voice acting-- much worse than even the original RT dubs. I'm also annoyed that so many of the new characters seem to have outfits designed solely to expose a generous amount of their bust in the interest of fan service. They didn't need that before. -Al

Oddly, for someone critical of the PT, I actually disagree with you mildly on both things here. Yeah, I agree the Ewoks had a bit kid-factor to them, and we could probably have been spared a few schticks. But at least they died. Mommy teddy bear getting vaped with kid bear mourning is not something you see everyday. At least that reel of the movie redeemed itself in spades with the Death Star and Endor battles, not to mention the saber fight. I actually might have liked AOTC less than TMP. AOTC seemed and felt to me like pandering to fan complaints, not by presenting them with a good movie, sound dialogue, and a tight plot but by just throwing a lot of over-saturated cg action, random beasties and death (after a corny "romance" drama). Everything screamed look at meee, and sorry about the last movie!. The biggest pander was tying Fett incestuously to just about everything. TMP was a mostly boring movie that could have benefitted from Jar Jar's complete removal and a few changes IMO. And the ending saberfight-- awesome. But AOTC does all sorts of things with the storyline that make me grimace-- mainly revolving around Anakin and Fett, the two most prominant characters in the story. -Al

Okay, I'll grant you that he's been exposed to lots of evil. But I still see innocence corrupted, damaged goods. We see how screwed up he becomes just a few years later. There's still no stalwart stand against evil. At the very least, I want to see this in an adult Anakin. What we have is still innocence tainted, and a gradual slip to the dark side from the beginning. It's not the good-bad-good dynamic we wanted to see, and what the OT suggested. That's my point entirely. There wasn't any abrupt out of character jump when the OT existed by itself. But watching them with the PT in mind, we keep wondering why vain, whiny, arrogant, annoying, rash, genocidal Vader is all of a sudden so pansy and paternal after decades of death dealing. We know Vader didn't kill luke because he felt some internal struggle. But watching it with the PT in mind we're apt to disbelieve his concern for his son. It's easier to attribute his actions as being for power or the Dark Side's sake. I know it's shown clearly that there's an internal struggle in Vader between his old/good self and his Dark Side in the OT. But that's precisely my point. Instead of setting and building up to this conflict in the new movies, Lucas just uses our knowledge of that conflict to spare himself the trouble of even having to really deal with it. It's bad storytelling. It's like PT Anakin is a totally different character. Because he is. The reason we don't feel as noticably the break from character in Vader's final act is only because the OT was consistent to itself. It's the PT that isn't consistent with the OT. -Al

Yeah, I think that's partly lazy storytelling on Lucas's part. He knows we've seen the OT and he figures he's allowed to paint an easy, straightforward fall to the darkside. He knows that we'll subconsciously be apologists for Anakin in telling ourselves that he's not all that bad, because Luke says so, and because of what he ultimately does. We do Lucas's job by reasoning that Anakin has to have some good in him. But that's lazy storytelling. He no longer shows us what we're supposed to believe. Rather, he leaves it up to us to explain for things that he should be demonstrating onscreen himself. And although no one actually watches the movies in order, the series would have been more cohesive if we could actually do so, without having to explain away things that feel off in our own minds because Lucas didn't bother to show otherwise. We do already have Vader acting out of character. We have him falling towards the darkside as a "creepy malajusted sociopath" ever since he was a kid, a long career of tyranny through fear, torture, and subjugation, and then suddenly giving all to save a son he never really knew. If we had seen this sort of self-sacrifice enacted in the PT, this sort of nobility, then there would actually have been an Anakin to redeem by the sixth movie. I don't think painting him as a nice, well-meaning, albiet uber-powerful guy would have made a fall out of character. We just need to hone in on his pride. Self-fixation corrupts powerfully. If it was shown that his attention slowly turned from others towards himself as savior, and if some tragedy suddenly disillusioned him to the Jedi cause (instead of distrusting the council and them distrusting him from the start), it could have made for a fall that doesn't necessarily break character. It would actually occur as a natural part of character development. Still, Ep. III could fix everything. Maybe so good as to render the first two largely unnecessary. -Al

But it's okay if you're good looking! And if you're arbitraily decided to be the "chosen one" on the basis of some midi-chamacallits. Seriously, the more I think about it, the more I think that we're supposed to empathize with him on good looks and Lucas's say so alone. Or it could just be Lucas's massive mishandling. Harry Osborne from Spiderman is cast from almost exactly the same mold. Dashing, charming, vain, dark and brooding. Replete with being haunted by a dead parent. Yet he somehow draws infinitely more empathy from viewers. -Al

See, problem is, "selfishness" is not a trait that makes for a proper tragic hero. It makes for annoying characters if they're protagonists and it makes for villians. The Greek tragedy involves a mostly good character with one key flaw that brings his downfall. Selfish, greedy, annoying, rash, arrogant, and whiney counts as more than one. Having so many unsympathizable faults causes the character to no longer be defined as a hero. The only thing he has going for him is that he's good looking and powerful, which just makes him even more annoying given all his other failings. If he became obsessed and fixated upon himself out of what was originally true, deep, and authentic service to others, he'd be a tragic hero. As is, he needs to get kicked into lava already. Unless EpIII fixes a lot of the damage done, of course. -Al

Well, see, that's what I'd liked to have the movies been about. Hero starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good. But that's not what we have. We have innocence, that steadily takes the path towards evil, and then makes an abrupt and out of character jump to good. Innocence and good as we experience it in the world differ in that former simply has limited exposure to evil. But good sees evil, stares it down, and commits itself in battle against it, whether that evil is external or internal. I don't see much "good" in pre-Vader Anakin. -Al

I'll give you that. Tell you the truth, I've always felt a little uneasy about Lando's sudden conversion to sainthood. But then again, it's explained and shown that Han and Lando have had history and some semblance of comraderie and trust, even if momentarily broken. And Lando did begin his redemption immediately after Han's betrayal. Besides, what can he really do against the Dark Lord of the Sith? Lando was also an exception to most of the characters, and I'd consider him a 2nd tier figure in Star Wars. Anakin is the focal figure, however. Part of it might simply be the fact that Lucas isn't a great director/writer of banter that actually makes you care about a character. Perhaps his general ideas and broad strokes would work better if they were refined by tighter writing and dialogue, like the OT was, IMO. Oh, I get that Anakin is largely selfish and annoying and intentionally so. But the obsession with controlling and saving others might have been even more powerful if they'd actually been fueled by some genuine desire and altruism on his part. I guess if I had any say (and I don't), I would have had Anakin be built up and portrayed as genuinely noble, concerned, doing real good and hailed as savior-- until pride and adoration get to his head. He begins to see himself as the rightful and sole savior of the Republic. Not just because of his power and abilities, but because of the trust given him by the Senate, the Council, the adoring citizens... and because of the fact that he has done much good. A slow transformation from being about others to making everything about himself. I suppose that's one way to see it-- the final scene in Jedi being where he actually gets a clue. That could work, although that's not how the original trilogy seems to portray him. It seems to constantly allude to his supposed goodness that still survives faintly, and Obi-wan seems to speak fondly of an Anakin worthy of redemption that "died" in Vader. I don't seem to be able to find this Anakin he speaks of in the PT. And it's awfully strange for him to actually grow more compassionate and selfless at the end of a career of force choking and general subjugation. I'd always viewed Vader's final act as desperately drawing from the strength of the man he once remembered being. I suppose it could work for irony's sake, but when Lucas finished with ROTJ, content to leave Star Wars as is for a good while, that's not how the scenes along with their meanings played out. We end up having to redefine much of what just worked in the original films, for something that I would say is more simplistic and less compelling. If we were to watch the films in order, even if the audience says "about time" to Anakin's only real act for good's sake, they would have stopped caring across five movies. My mistake might be thinking that we're supposed to care. But oddly, I was concerned about Anakin's redemption in Jedi. Now, viewing the movie through the perspective gained from the PT, I find myself largely ambivalent. I would say that this makes for a weaker series of films. I dunno. I kinda like Claire Danes. -Al

The topic of whether the new movies are as good as the old have come up in very casual conversation with: A Director of our company-- who is decidedly more heavily on the "cool" and social side than any. Charming "suit" type. He's not a geek by any means, nor does he have very strong opinions about Star Wars other than normal mild enjoyment of the films. A 6 year old Star Wars fan-- nostalgia factor is not working here. A near-30's friend-- who enjoyed the old films but isn't particularly passioned about them. A 20-something friend of a friend-- who actually doesn't care for Star Wars that much. He saw the original films in high school, and attributes his lukewarm reception to not having grown up with it. All have observed casually that the new film/films aren't quite as good as the old. Their appreciation of EPI and/or II ranged from enjoyment to outright criticism. But regular "normal" folk seem to be able to discern the difference of quality between the OT and PT somehow. Theoretically they shouldn't be able to, because it's only the dorks who can imagine such a thing. -Al

Ehh. I beg to differ. The dynamic in AOTC was simplistic and contrived in my opinion. Could have been much deeper. And showing short training scenes laden with meaning would and could have made for interesting parallels and contrasts with Luke's later training. After all, he feels he's partly to blame for Anakin's fall. Been avoiding the spoilers. But goody. But of course now my expectations for that aspect of the film has been increased with this spoiler tidbit. I dunno. Your paraphrase of the supposed current plotline sounds kinda good actually. My take of the current plotline goes: Anakin wants to be uber. He's whiny, arrogant, rash, and has serious issues arising from childhood trauma. He's more concerned about his own vanity and pain than the actual welfare of those he cares about. Maybe it's just the execution, if not the general idea. Somehow I keep missing the part about him caring for others' for their sake first, and not just for his petty own. It might have been better presented by him actually struggling to fight his anger, pain, and vanity instead of being driven solely by it... with him being controlled and trustworthy at first, and this obsession towards controlling others for their imagined sake culminating later. *shrug* -Al

I guess what I really wanted to see was comraderie between Obi-wan and Anakin, like you'd see between Luke and Han, or Obi-wan and Yoda in the OT. Quippy lines traded, a deep sense of implicit trust. Saving each others' lives. A relationship that had some quality of brotherhood about it. A lot of good hearted butt kicking together. It'd all be a giant setup before the fall, of course. But I think the fall would have been all the more powerful if it actually had you rooting for Anakin against all hope. Instead, Obi-wan's relation to Anakin revolves primarily around babysitting a whiny, overpowered brat. AOTC Anakin somehow manages to be more immature and annoying than kid-Anakin in TMP (who actually had traces of altruistic nobility). We don't even get to see Obi-wan train-- and possibly mistrain Anakin in the way of the Force. We don't get to compare his approach towards training Anakin from his approach towards Luke (nagging the already l33t Anakin doesn't count). There's about zero sympathy we can build towards Anakin and his fall, except the sympathy that comes from the fact that he's the good-looking lead and has the girl, and thus by association must be the "tragic hero". We reason that he must have some good to him, in being able to net Padme's love-- in remembering Luke's fixation with the good still left in his father-- and because Lucas tells us so. But as far as we can tell, she's just fallen in love with a whiny, arrogant, genocidal megalomaniac with a serious mommy complex. He's not noble. He's not admirable. He doesn't even evoke awe and dread. He's just fricking creepy. So we're left conflicted as we watch, understanding subconsciously that we're supposed to have a care about him, while hating everything that we actually see of him onscreen. Right now, I just can't wait for Obi-wan to hand him the whooping he deserves... which although enjoyable, won't involve as rich a story and dynamic as I think it could have. -Al

Wow. Brevity is not my strong suit. Brevity is the soul of wit. Draw your own conclusions. -Al

I dunno. From my actual MMORPG experiences, I'd say game mechanics are much more important to get down right off the bat than bugfree code. Fixing unoptimized net, graphics, and gamecode is a straightforward endeavor in software engineering. So long as you have a sensible base architecture, it's doable, even if it takes time, effort, and manpower. But a bad starting game design can't be easily or quickly fixed by gradual tweaks. Unbalanced mechanics will breed unbalanced gameplay, unbalanced character progression, exploits, a broken economy, broken class interactions, and a gigantic mess of interlinked and interdependent systems that you have to undo. The complexity just grows as time goes on, and the whole system will start to entangle upon itself. Fixing one thing without careful consideration of its repercussions will just promote another imbalance in its place. The longer you wait to fix the system and get everything right, the more you'll have to redo and undo. And the larger the change in a system, the more vocal the outrage from the playerbase will be-- even if they're good changes. Players hate having what they've worked for taken away, and they hate having systems they've mastered be changed on them... even if the new systems are much more balanced and elegant from the perspective of game design. That's why I consider sound game design even more paramount than tight code at launch. Fixes to code likely result in a more noticably improved product most of the time. Tweaks to gameplay very often do not. Yes, both race against time and market pressures, but imbalanced gameplay actually produces problems that grow worse in magnitude with time. Unoptimized and buggy code results in a fun game that can be played properly only some of the time. Bad gameplay mechanics results in an unfun game all of the time. This has been my experience with MMORPG's, most notably SWG. The engineering issues were always forgivable, and the game always grew more stable over time. But its gameplay mechanics are so horribly maligned that two years of balancing has resulted in a mess in many cases worse than it was at launch. Now it requires a complete overhaul in the form of the "combat upgrade"... but I'm dubious on whether the developers can deliver or not. Err, I was asking about how Matrix Online played. I agree that the technical issues in SWG are handled fairly quickly. But the game's one giant mess in my opinion. SWG is easily the most horribly imbalanced major MMORPG I've ever played, and it's easily the one with the least developer effort on getting things right in the gameplay department. I've been around since launch, and the game is actually more unbalanced than ever, thanks to quick developer fixes and "enhancements" like doctor buffs and foods that are added without much thought. "Slightly" is a bit of an understatement. -Al

Not to mention that we think Anakin is an arrogant pain in the arse, which makes his "redemption" in ROTJ so much less meaningful. There wasn't much to redeem, and he was never portrayed with the nobility he showed in the final movie. I always saw Vader as having reached into his past noble self in order to muster the strength to trade save his son. We see no hint of such a past self yet. Maybe they'll spend at least part of the last movie building up Anakin before tearing him down. I can hope. -Al