Star Wars: The Old Republic

[Miz]

I really like the art direction of the game (save for sage), keeps the PT silliness while still showing glimpses of the OT. Every time I look at my Sith Warrior the chestplate reminds me a lot of Darth Vader's. The Sorcerer's armor is something I'd expect a manipulative darksider to wear.

For some reason my game keeps completely crashing as I'm approaching the Jedi Temple in a taxi on Coruscant...like the game literally just shuts down completely and I'm stuck in transit every time I log in with that character.

Weird, never happened to me. When you log out it should tele you to where you entered the taxi. I'd wait for the server to clear out a bit.

 

[Joy Carleec]

Yeah, because 30 years changes the look of an entire galaxy, spare me the excuses mate, they're not legitimate. As Bac and I have said, denying this is denying reality, the change was made and it's all in the imagery.

I see what you're saying, but i'm not sure i can easily differentiate to make a compelling argument. So i'll just say... You're comparing a core world to a distant dust ball. If the OT had corella or coruscant in it, even Naboo and showed stark differences. I would agree. But the scenes you've got there, is a clean classy bar scene on the republic homeworld, before war vs a shithole in the middle of nowhere...

I imagine i'm missing the point anyway, so let me just ramble.

 

[Silverface]

On the topic of TOR's aesthetic, I've found it borrows way too much from the OT in an attempt to get people to go "I recognise that! That thing from the movie!". Lots of really niggling things, like the design of the Imperial ships being essentially an Imperial Star Destroyer, the fighters being almost carbon copies of their PT and OT counterparts, the Sith Empire's sigil ( which is the Republic's one, why aren't the Republic using it instead of the faux Rebellion one? ) and so on.


I'm sure there's some relentlessly dull in-universe explanation, but I just think the game's trying way too hard to cling to the coattails of the films instead of taking the same risks KOTOR did with it's design.

 

[Kaeb]

So apparently subscribers are the only people who can report glitches with their game on the SWTOR forums....so I'm just stuck and there's nothing I can do?

 

[Joy Carleec]

So apparently subscribers are the only people who can report glitches with their game on the SWTOR forums....so I'm just stuck and there's nothing I can do?

Sounds accurate with how TOR has gone lately. "Pay to do anything" market strategies..

 

[Kaeb]

I'll try it again in a bit but if it's still the same thing, I'll be forced to just abandon my main character Liddia. She's level 17 and some guy in the sewers helped me get a datacron for her so now I have a matrix shard with her and everything.

I better not be just stuck in a perpetual crash loop with her.

 

[Empress]

the Sith Empire's sigil ( which is the Republic's one, why aren't the Republic using it instead of the faux Rebellion one? ) and so on.

same but different... the symbol itself is a bendu star * its basically in all ways a buddhist dharma wheel even down to the 8 points hence why I mix both symbols for the warden's crest

the one used by the sith empire is a 6 pointed variant, but has the same origin as the 8 pointed one since philosophically and such its origins go back pre force wars iirc

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I see what you're saying, but i'm not sure i can easily differentiate to make a compelling argument. So i'll just say... You're comparing a core world to a distant dust ball. If the OT had corella or coruscant in it, even Naboo and showed stark differences. I would agree. But the scenes you've got there, is a clean classy bar scene on the republic homeworld, before war vs a shithole in the middle of nowhere...

I imagine i'm missing the point anyway, so let me just ramble.

Consider the city from Blade Runner. That type of look for a planet-wide metropolis would've been fine in Star Wars. It fits that aesthetic. But the prequels went in a totally different direction with the aesthetic, and they didn't have to. The things you're saying - "it's the Republic homeworld," "it's the Core," etc - are not about aesthetic decisions. What you're saying is the excuses for those decisions created after those decisions were made. They don't justify those decisions, they simply come up with story reasons to excuse them after the fact. Which is fine from an in-universe perspective, but pretty much irrelevant to the reasons why George Lucas made those decisions.

And I love the design of Coruscant, by the time of Episode III. It seriously looks real in that movie, like someone flew over an actual city with a camera. It's fantastic. But it doesn't really look like something that would exist in the same universe as what we saw in the original trilogy.

 

[Joy Carleec]

I'll try it again in a bit but if it's still the same thing, I'll be forced to just abandon my main character Liddia. She's level 17 and some guy in the sewers helped me get a datacron for her so now I have a matrix shard with her and everything.

I better not be just stuck in a perpetual crash loop with her.

Most of them are piss easy to get when you're lvl 30-40, so i wouldn't worry about it.


The thing i'm getting from that discussion, Brandon. Is that it's not okay that its okay that its not okay... Seriously...

I get what you mean, where it's two very different filters, but they didn't have the ability to showcase every pretty planet in the OT - especially when none of it was set on those planets.
For your arguement you would've been better off pointing out how vastly different Tatooine in the OT is to the PT, which would've made more sense than things that actually have a very good excuse for looking the way they are?

 

[Kaeb]

Consider the city from Blade Runner. That type of look for a planet-wide metropolis would've been fine in Star Wars. It fits that aesthetic. But the prequels went in a totally different direction with the aesthetic, and they didn't have to. The things you're saying - "it's the Republic homeworld," "it's the Core," etc - are not about aesthetic decisions. What you're saying is the excuses for those decisions created after those decisions were made. They don't justify those decisions, they simply come up with story reasons to excuse them after the fact. Which is fine from an in-universe perspective, but pretty much irrelevant to the reasons why George Lucas made those decisions.

And I love the design of Coruscant, by the time of Episode III. It seriously looks real in that movie, like someone flew over an actual city with a camera. It's fantastic. But it doesn't really look like something that would exist in the same universe as what we saw in the original trilogy.

Whoops, never even addressed that post, but yeah, pretty much this ^

The Star Wars OT pioneered the lived-in aesthetic for fantastical universes in cinema, it made them feel like real environments, like dirt, oil, sweat, blood and people had occupied the spaces we were seeing for some time. Everything was aged, worn and ancient looking with an almost mythic aspect to it's design. Even the shiny imperials had this look with the construction and shape of their outfits and the interiors of their ships, you can see the inner workings, everything looks practical and believable.

Fastforward to Coruscant and the buildings and the costumes look like Flash Gordon, when Bac is right and they should have looked like Aliens or Blade Runner. It would have been consistent with what came before while still introducing new environments into the universe.

I've addressed this with other examples before, like Felucia. Imagine in Firefly, Battlestar Galactica or even one of the Alien films, they landed on a planet like that? It would be completely inconsistent with the aesthetic tonality of those universes, just like it was for Star Wars.

Star Wars environments never felt truly alien, which is why they were so great. And the aliens themselves in the Star Wars universe all looked animalistic in their aesthetic design, you can see the creatures that influenced their aesthetic, which is why the alien designs in the PT were also completely inconsistent...they were TOO alien.

 

[Logan]

I've addressed this with other examples before, like Felucia. Imagine in Firefly, Battlestar Galactica or even one of the Alien films, they landed on a planet like that? It would be completely inconsistent with the aesthetic tonality of those universes, just like it was for Star Wars.

Because all planets in an entire galaxy look relatively uniform and consistent?

"Oh no, that place doesn't fit the OT aesthetic. Can't go there!"

 

[Kaeb]

Because all planets in an entire galaxy look relatively uniform and consistent?

"Oh no, that place doesn't fit the OT aesthetic. Can't go there!"

.....what?

 

[Kaeb]

Another example I'd give, is the Gungan city.

Do I think an underwater city could work in Star Wars?

Absolutely, but make it less fantastical and make it more....Bioshock.

 

[Joy Carleec]

I get the whole "lived in" arguement you've got, but like i said in my prior post. I share the same sentiment as Relent.

Why would the Gungans ever let their city - which i presume functions as intended and is kept in working condition, get to be a shithole like bioshock's? Completely different technologies in play. Bioshock is very steampunk and has to rely on a guy in a diving bell in order to clean their windows. For all we know Gungans have a self-cleaning window system or use fish.

It just feels like your whole arguement is comparing raspberries with strawberries, sure they're fruit - but they're two very different fruit..

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't understand why every planet, except bespin, has to be either tattoine or a nearly uninhabited planet. That's pretty much what im getting from this whole discussion. Things have to look like a desert shithole, IE the tattoine aesthetic, or they have to be narrow corridors, IE bespin, or they have to be a large planet eith no civilization on them, like yavin, hoth, degobah, and endor.

Those are essentially the aesthtics of star wars locations. Not really seeing why everything in the galaxy has to look backwater or a shanty town, when a diverse amount of locations would make the galaxy feel like a gapaxy wide place full of life, rather then the three main set pieces I listed above.

Edit: In other words, why must everything look worn down, crappily maintained, or just shottily put together, in order to be of "star wars aesthetics". What's wrong with having different regions have different aesthetics? Why must they all be the one single aesthetic from dusty shithole tattooine?

 

[Silverface]

Because all planets in an entire galaxy look relatively uniform and consistent?

"Oh no, that place doesn't fit the OT aesthetic. Can't go there!"

The point went so far over your head it achieved orbit.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

The point went so far over your head it achieved orbit.

Or perhaps it is a valid pont, being ignored for the convenience of not re-examining the proclaimed importance of the "worn down aesthetic" that's being used to measure the star warsiness of a designz?

Why should a heavily populated and economic center of the galaxy look az neglected and worn down as a planet that was designed to be poor and harsh?

 

[Kaeb]

I get the whole "lived in" arguement you've got, but like i said in my prior post. I share the same sentiment as Relent.

Why would the Gungans ever let their city - which i presume functions as intended and is kept in working condition, get to be a shithole like bioshock's? Completely different technologies in play. Bioshock is very steampunk and has to rely on a guy in a diving bell in order to clean their windows. For all we know Gungans have a self-cleaning window system or use fish.

It just feels like your whole arguement is comparing raspberries with strawberries, sure they're fruit - but they're two very different fruit..

Wow, you've completely missed my point. You keep arguing from an in-universe perspective, which is not what we're doing here at all mate.

 

[Kaeb]

I don't understand why every planet, except bespin, has to be either tattoine or a nearly uninhabited planet. That's pretty much what im getting from this whole discussion. Things have to look like a desert shithole, IE the tattoine aesthetic, or they have to be narrow corridors, IE bespin, or they have to be a large planet eith no civilization on them, like yavin, hoth, degobah, and endor.

Those are essentially the aesthtics of star wars locations. Not really seeing why everything in the galaxy has to look backwater or a shanty town, when a diverse amount of locations would make the galaxy feel like a gapaxy wide place full of life, rather then the three main set pieces I listed above.

Edit: In other words, why must everything look worn down, crappily maintained, or just shottily put together, in order to be of "star wars aesthetics". What's wrong with having different regions have different aesthetics? Why must they all be the one single aesthetic from dusty shithole tattooine?

Annnnnnnd you've entirely missed the point too.

 

[Kaeb]

Bac and I have already acknowledged that you CAN have a populous area consistent with the original aesthetic, but they didn't do it and that's the issue.

It's literally as simple as that.