Most of the templars and assassins are boring ****s. And the templars as a whole are largely unimpressive. Almost none of them represent any kind of threat to you and are easily dispatched.
Furthermore the story is pretty up its own ass and contrived. Ezio not killing Pope Douche was a colossally and illogically dumb move.
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Nah KotOR's better in every way, especially 2. Far more memorable main character, party members, villains, and setting (talking specifically what the games added to established SW lore, such as the infinite empire). Plot of 2 blows the Mass Effect plot out of the water. Plus it has the extra edge of the SW brand. And imo the gameplay in ME1 was a real mess.
Nah. Don't get me wrong, I love KOTOR I and II, but ME is just so much more in every sense.
KOTOR and KOTOR II are SW universe, ME is a completely new universe. Just because of that, it becomes unique and a thousand times more original than both KOTORs.
Memorable main characters? I'd argue that characters of both series are memorable, not only those of the KOTOR series. You have guys like Garrus, Mordin, Miranda, Thane, Joker, Mordin, Wrex, Anderson, Jacob and Ashley. I'd take any of those characters' background and story development over any of the KOTOR guys, actually. They are much better developed in every sense.
Villains? You kidding me? You think Malak aka Vader 2.0 is a better villain than, say, the Illusive Man? Oh HELL no. Sion better than the Collectors? Nihilus better than the Reapers? I'll take ME villains over those in the KOTOR games anyday. The only villain who was truly excellent was Traya. The rest are meh imo.
Eh, AC is cool and all but that's not too interesting. I mean, its not a particularly deep story. There aren't any themes and its not really character driven. I guess if you're into history its great but meh. If you want to see some real interesting video game shit, click here.
Best game ever, heh.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Nope, the idea is not that death is a harm but rather the experience of dying. There is often pain associated with it, and anxiety or apprehension leading up to it.Additionally, David Benetar examines the fact that while "the presence of pain is bad and the presence of pleasure is good" the same symmetry does not seem to hold for the absence of pain and pleasure. To wit: "the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone whereas the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is someone for whom this absence is a deprivation."
It's a cool article, but I'm not 100% sure I'm allowed to reproduce it. You can probably find it on JSTOR under "Why it is better never to come into existence David Benetar"
Slowly making my way through this, but so far I disagree with Benetar's assertion that the absence of pain is good whilst the absence of pleasure is simply neutral. Both are in fact neutral. What is good is simply the absence of pain in comparison to the existence of pain, or the transition from pain to an absence of pain, whether real or hypothetical. Benetar states that it is the absence of pain itself that is good in a way that seems to be agreeable but it has been completely unsupported, and I would assert that it is axiomatic that there is neutral utility in the complete lack of pain, pleasure, or existence.
Having finished reading it, I've identified a pretty big contradiction in Benetar's argument. On page 350, he asserts under heading IV that in comparing existence with non-existence, he is comparing somebody who exists to the alternative state of non-existence, as non-existence is something that has no perspective by which you can argue if it is better or worse off, so it is simply a matter of whether the individual that exists is better or worse off. However on the same page under heading V, that is exactly what he does when stating that the pleasures of existence offer no advantage over non-existence, and yet when it comes to the pains of existence, he goes back to following his stated methodology in concluding that existence exposes the individual to the disadvantages of pain. This is crucial as his main point seems to be that existence offers no advantages of pleasure over non-existence, yet offers disadvanatges of pain over non-existence and thus the state of non-existence is always preferable.
If he had stuck to his methodology, he would have concluded that a person that exists has both the advantages of pleasure and the disadvantages of pain, both of which he wouldn't have under the alternative state of non-existence.
He also seems to be against the relativity of utility, which seems unrealistic, though it's not crucial to his main point.
Originally posted by Astor EbligisHmmm, playing Baldur's Gate on XBOX...
It really is. That game was way worse than something like Fable, let alone the likes of Dragon Age and KotOR. Only reason I got it was because Xbox had shit all for games.
So tell me Darth Ray Park, why do you make such terrible choices in life?
Originally posted by ares834Give me a good laugh and explain to me how Dragon Age was derivative (This is the proper spelling by the way).
Dragon Age was garbage. 😐But then that maybe because I'm a big fantasy fan so I can see how derivate the game truly is.
Also, name the fantasy series you're a fan of.
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Nah KotOR's better in every way, especially 2. Far more memorable main character, party members, villains, and setting (talking specifically what the games added to established SW lore, such as the infinite empire). Plot of 2 blows the Mass Effect plot out of the water. Plus it has the extra edge of the SW brand. And imo the gameplay in ME1 was a real mess.
Right man, that guy who was totally not an edgier Han Solo was pretty memorable, as was generic bounty hunter chick and psycho Wookie (Okay I sort of love psycho Wookie admittedly). Oh, and who can forget the mechanic whose name I've forgotten.
The Handmaiden and Visas Marr were pretty cool.
Darth Nihilus was very memorable, as was Traya I guess (Sion is merely okay), all are probably more memorable than Saren. Only Nihilus rivals Sovereign.
Also, Kotor's gameplay was more boring.
Originally posted by NephthysGet Avellone's shriveled, unused cock out of your mouth.
It really isn't fair to compare Kotor 2 to Mass Effect. Of course Bioware can't compete with Obsidian in terms of writing.
Avellone is the very definition of an edgemaster. He couldn't write a believable story with well-adjusted characters if his life depended on it, so he was to go with overly edgy and Joss Whedon-esque sarcastic stories, with an entire cast of dysfunctional characters (... And the Disciple). He does that one thing well, but it is the only thing he can do.
Originally posted by psmith81992It doesn't suck, it's just not particularly memorable.
Lol the age old story about templars vs. Assassins sucks but baldurs gate and bioshock are awesome? You've lost all privileges.
Bioshock had a far more original and memorable storyline, and more importantly the story was seamlessly merged with the gameplay, whereas Assassin's Creed goes with the timeless "cutscene" route. AC is a good series, it just isn't nearly as good as you seem to think it is.
