[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Um... we did.I'm intrigued though. Are you suggesting that, if we didn't hadn't played past level 5, frame rate performance would somehow magically change at level 6?[/citation]
What, you weren't aware? It's a universally-accessible buff, that raises the framerate by 15% for 200 sec. And technically it's not magic, it's a force power.
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]At its core its just another MMO.[/citation]
To me, I'll admit that highlights my main problem. I never really could stay within the appeal of a standard-model MMO for very long. Sure, I've given some time to a decent variety of them, (especially the free ones, but also not-so-free ones like WoW) and in the end, I couldn't stay with them, as their core mechanics just got under my skin.
The reason I can disagree with 10 million others probably lies within the fact that to me as a gamer, making something multiplayer and tossing in the "social aspect" doesn't automatically make it better; I'll take a more solid single-player game over a less-solid multiplayer game any day of the week. My impression from others is that it's the opposite for most: simply by being an MMO, a lot of shortcomings are more easily overlooked. At least, that's the conclusion I got, as due to the main mechanics of "grind for gear" in games like WoW are vastly inferior to their non-MMO brethren; Diablo II immediately comes to mind.
In the end, I have my doubts I'd be able to seriously get into and stay with the game, as it was made pretty clear relatively early on that any and all hopes that it wouldn't fit quite thoroughly into the Everquest/World of WarCraft mold were entirely without basis. It follows essentially identical chracter-creation mechanics to WoW, with the largest change being that the "talent trees" don't start until level 10, and you are forced to pick one of two sets then. That yields another significant problem with the genre for me: there's no fun in experimenting with different gameplay systems, as they all tend to be entirely the same.
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]In the actual movie, Han Solo says "She's fast enough for you old man", indicating speed, not his navigational skill.All of the other explanations are non-canon, made up by fans to explain away a script mistake. It's fun to point it out, try not to take it too seriously, mate.[/citation]
The original script did have a notation that indicated that the claim was supposed to be an entirely irrelevant/made-up claim, but I thought that LucasFilm/Arts later DID officially retcon the most logical explanation... Or at least, one did become official canon:
The Kessel run between Nal Hutta & Kessel, if done in a straight line, passes right through a black hole. (more specifically the Maw Cluster of black holes) Obviously such a path would have negative consequences for one's health, so pilots must detour around it. The faster a ship goes, the closer one could safely send one's trajectory to the black holes, as the smaller their "event horizons" would be for that speed. The later interpreted meaning there is that only with the Millenium Falcon's Class 0.5 hyperdrive that the course could be taken sufficiently straight that the length would come in under the 12 parsec mark.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram