Botdra

Are these soundpacks JUST for voices, or do they include other relevant sounds like proprietary weapon/equipment sounds, ship sounds etc.?

Every now and then I see a character in the Star Wars universe and think "That's not in JA, I wish it was", and here I'll show a few of the ones I actually felt the need to make myself. I'm not very good at skinning (clearly), so the ones that I tackle are ones that are easy enough to do for a beginner. I may release some/all of them one day, but for now I just thought I'd keep them all here for people to see and give feedback on. as I don't really have much time for modding anyways. A lot of these are only minor changes, but since they're easy enough to do half-decently, might as well have them, right? Variety for RPers, if nothing else. Clone Sergeant - Phase 1 (As seen in Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes) Reference: CT-1409 "Echo" (As seen receiving a medal in Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Espisode 5, "Rookies") CT-5555 "Fives" (As seen receiving a medal in Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Espisode 5, "Rookies") Reference: Bando Gora Follower/Member (As seen in Star Wars: Bounty Hunter)

E3 this year was basically the year of teaser trailers. Not gameplay, not CG hype trailers, just teasers. Lots of which were for things we already knew were coming.Things were talked about, but rarely shown or shown very little of. That being said, lots of cool stuff coming. Just think the conference overall has been a disappointment.

So Nintendo sucked. No surprise there. Otherwise so far everything I've seen is pretty awesome.

Nice, love the idea. Can't wait to see more.

Here's an easy way to tell if something is Star Wars canon or not: Did you enjoy it? Then it's probably been deemed no longer canon. Seriously, I do believe that the game is generally considered canon further evidenced by their decision to add a tie-in comic series (Jango Fett: Open Seasons) which is definitely considered canon as far as I can tell online. However, because of the nature of video games you can't take everything as canon, such as some of the game mechanics. For example, Jango uses darts like the ones he gets on Kamino, but the whole game takes place prior to him ever going to Kamino. Maybe I'm wrong and the darts aren't the same, or in some book or comic he goes to Kamino, but I don't think that's the case. Main characters and plot points are canon, or at least mirrored in other Star Wars content, but not everything can be taken verbatim.

Unless you get it on a damn good sale, it won't be. When it comes to triple AAA title pricing ($70-80 CAD) I've maybe been happy with 2% of them. Obviously I didn't pay full price for any of them, but the more time goes on the less you get and the more you have to pay. Less hours of gameplay, worse graphics (hello every sports game ever), it's ridiculous.

Because it's not an obvious answer? And because you're definitely the minority? Because it's not common information? It's a fair question, relax. Quit playing the victim when someone is legitimately trying to learn about your "community". Community as a reason still doesn't answer the question... there wouldn't be a community without good reason. It has to come from somewhere. So is it more because you had a larger number of servers that were available to you that only used baseJA?

That was my question too, why would you use 1.00 if the update is really just fixes of things that should be fixed? I can only assume the answer lies in "various exploit fixes"?

I guess so.

How are those reading comprehension skills coming along?

Great work man. Regarding Embo there needs to be some updating on it I think to make it more like what I've seen in pictures, but I haven't actually seen him in the show so correct me if it's just a different version. The embroidering on his robes, the bandages on his arms and shoes, that sort of thing.

This just goes to show why you're not even worth addressing anymore. I'll let you argue with the others from now on. Maybe you'll learn some civility, to read some of their posts properly, and learn to stop attacking people over such a petty issue. Take your sensitivity, harassment and superiority complex elsewhere please. Thank you. @@Syko: Perhaps I spoke too soon, as there seem to be conflicting statistics online. The closer I look the more it seems that the video game industry is bigger, but not by as much as some numbers report. Some say the gaming industry made double what the film industry did in 2013. Wikipedia says that internationally video games made $81.5 billion in 2014, while the film industry made half that in 2013. Different years of course, but obviously the film industry didn't double in a year. In fact, 2013 was a console release year for the two biggest selling console creators (historically), so that says a lot about the 2014 statistics. Suppose it would depend on what you include in your numbers. Either way though, even with pessimistic stats it's at least in the same league as the film industry. I'd also argue that although film has more "big winners", that the video game industry has a larger amount of "mid level" success with games, seemingly. That's entirely based on my perception and what I know from anecdotes throughout the years though, not statistics so take that with a grain of salt. EDIT: Yeah that number is grossly (heh, double meaning) inaccurate. Console sales for the PS4 alone are nearly $9 billion, according to Sony. That is since release, but it's also from March 31st.

If you wish to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion that doesn't involve selective reading, dodging arguments, needlessly insulting others, and fabricating what counts as "fact", you're more than welcome to come back to this thread. Until then, I suggest we end the conversation since it's only going to escalate. Moving forward, another example of video games being painted poorly by the media was the whole Twitch buyout. Every news station was essentially saying "What's Twitch and why the hell would anyone pay money for it?!" in a very similar manner to when they discuss games like GTA5 grossing insane amounts of money and somehow fail to notice that the video game industry is a bigger industry than film by a large amount. Anyone see the CBS follow up talking about how Twitch and the Let's Play culture are pure evil? Not sure if CBS has gone Nintendo or Nintendo has gone CBS...

I'd like to avoid a "dislike" button, personally. As stated early by several people there's no point to it, it adds nothing to a conversation. I think it would be fairly easy to argue that it would be detrimental. The "like" feature is one I'm indifferent about. Although it also adds nothing to a conversation, it is a nice and easy way to say "good job" or acknowledge a post without having to quote a bunch of them etc. I don't much care either way to be honest, but a dislike button would just be a bad idea.

Oh man, I hadn't heard about the Mass Effect "controversy". I think Geoff did a good job of defending it and I'm glad he was on. I never expect anyone from the industry to be involved in any news reports, it's usually just some psychologist or "expert" who has never played a video game or doesn't even have kids who play video games. You need to calm down. There is really no need for insults here, especially insulting one's intelligence when it seems you have missed the point of the previous posts. You have clearly not read my post properly, or anyone's posts here considering you still think some people in this thread are saying video games and traditional sports the same thing. I never once said they were the same as sports, I said they are similar and gave you many reasons as to why they are similar, even stating their major difference of the level of physical activity, but you continue to argue blindly. Sure books are easier on the eyes for most people, but research shows that learning by doing is much more effective than learning by being told, either in person or in writing. You say games "may not be useless" as if they don't already have some use... clearly you're here because you also play video games and see their use. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? I don't think I need to argue that video games have a purpose at this point. Keep in mind we are in a changing world. We're currently knocking on the door of virtual reality with things like VR headsets becoming mainstream, the more interactive the games become the more the term "sport" will change and become a gray area. Eventually we'll have different terms for things as well. Currently all the gamers I know who compete call themselves "professional gamers" or "competitive gamers" since they are in a position of winning money for their skills in video games, like athletes win money for their skills in other activities. You seem to be very upset about an issue that no one here is on the other side of. Why is this such an important issue to you that video games not be called sports? Why do you take it so personally and get so irrationally irritated?

No one is saying it's the same as sports, but it's certainly similar. I wouldn't want to see League of Legends battles on ESPN either, but I wouldn't be against a new channel dedicated to competitive gaming. I mean really, what's the biggest difference? The playing field. Other than that, they are both still enjoyable for the spectators, they get to see skilled players in a specific arena, there are tournaments, huge prizes, you can play with your friends, place bets on it if that's your thing, etc. Mind you, chess is technically considered a sport internationally, despite the definition of sport typically involving some sort of physical activity on a level of mild exercise or more. Poker is on ESPN too, that's not much of a "sport" by that description, and yet people still pay to watch it and pay to play it. Regarding feminism, I don't think it was so much "this is a feminist issue" as much as the girl in the video was saying she quit online gameplay because this was the straw that broke the camels back when it comes to misogyny in online gaming, for her personally. I don't think anyone can deny just how much more rude, offensive, and misogynistic people are in online games, especially in games like Call of Duty, GTA, the big - for lack of a better word - "bro" games. I think the news report is more responsible for making it look like a general feminist issue. But to be honest, I wouldn't say it isn't a feminist issue really. I can't say I've played more than 20 minutes of online games without someone saying something misogynistic. That definitely doesn't represent the majority of gamers, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem too.

Hah, incredible. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a difference between athleticism and skills involved in video games, but someone needs a vacation.

Because I think it's laughable, not rage inducing. You're welcome to think whatever you want, I don't really care either way.

I think you're severely overestimating the impact this report had on me. I think it's a point of conversation. @@IrocJeff: Fair point, but to most people who watch the news a hacker is just a criminal, and modders are apparently the same as criminals.

http://dudecomedy.com/girl-claims-she-was-virtually-raped-in-gta-v/ "These hackers, also known as modders." Oh sorry, I didn't realize people who modify and create original content for games they love were on the same page as people who spend their time stealing files from the FBI. The media being ignorant about gamers and gaming isn't anything new, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. Tried to find out if this was a joke or a hoax since the site makes it look that way, but unfortunately it seems to be legitimate.

Perhaps you're right, maybe I don't understand what you mean by conflict of interest. Yes, if you're working on a hobby that conflicts with your work it is a conflict of interest. However, you can still work on something as a hobby and have it NOT be a conflict of interest despite it being in the same field as your 9-5. It's scenario specific. If I work on a 2D platformer from 9-5 and then go home and make better textures for Quake 3 in my spare time how is that an automatic conflict of interest? It isn't. If I stayed up late doing them and showed up to work late the next day, sure. But if I don't, then what's the issue? Being a ghost writer 9-5 and then writing my own music in my spare time isn't automatically a conflict of interest. It's entirely dependent on the scenario. Again, no point in me addressing shots at Valve's system because I'm not arguing for it. Regarding the music analogy: it didn't use to be an accepted idea to have to pay to see a concert. People just made music together as part of their culture, and if you were there you heard it and if you weren't then you didn't. Introducing the idea of "Hey, here's something creative that people do, maybe we should allow them to make money off of it" didn't kill music. No reason it would be entirely and automatically detrimental to video games either. Great Wikipedia article, but you're arguing about musical terminology with the wrong person. To a normal person a cover can be a reinterpretation, legally it is not. The phrase has been used and misused forever. According to actual law they are not the same thing, despite it being generally accepted by people who aren't in the music business to be a "cover". Play an exact recreation of a song, then play your own arrangement of it and see if the legal consequences are the same. Copyright law, performance royalties, you name it. It's very different depending on what you do with the song. If you file a recording as a "cover" and not an "arrangement" or "orchestration" with a government body you better damn well be sure it's played note for note. It's part of my job to know and enforce these things. I see your point, and again simply state that this is all based off of our current system. Implementing a system where you pay for mods would also require cooperation from the developers regarding rights. No one is disputing that. Again, I merely started by saying "I hope we find a system that works". I fully acknowledge that we don't have one. That's the point. So there's lots of garbage out there, great. So what? What is the long term impact of people making bad games? If they're bad, people won't buy them. Same with the iPhone apps that cost $1,000 that do absolutely nothing. People don't buy them, and if they do just for the sake of creating a cool story, they are more than welcome to. I doubt anyone with that kind of money is taking away from the video game economy. Like you said, Domestic Dog Simulator is rubbish and you're not going to buy it. Do you really think the creator will continue to make sequels if no one is buying it? And even if they were so passionate about it that they made sequels every month for 15 years so what? People will always make garbage. But a garbage product won't sell, so why does it matter? Putting a price tag on something that you've put immense amounts of time and work into is not the same thing as losing all passion for a project, a good individual becoming a corrupt menace, and just going for the cheapest, easiest way to make as much money as possible. Lots of time and energy was put into that project, and now all of a suddenly their exploiting people by asking for money? If I release a decent game that I put months of work into for free and then go "I think I'd like to get paid for my hard work and dedication" I think that's fair. Is it kinda inconvenient and a pain? Yeah. Is it smart? Not particularly. Does it make me a bad person who will from that moment on only create video games for the sake of making a quick buck? Of course not. Charging money for mods absolutely does open the doors for more greedy, cash-hungry morons. Yes. But if they make a great product, who cares? And if they make a terrible product, who cares? If they only churn out garbage they'll fall by the wayside. Our issue then becomes what, one of it being marginally more difficult to find that indie game on Steam that you heard about? And again, I can't name a company that doesn't have a contract like this. That comes back to my point of "This is another factor that would need to be looked it if we created a new system for paid mods." I'm not saying all mods should be paid. I'm simply saying adopting a Bandcamp approach (where it can be free, by donation or a set price) shouldn't be something we all turn our noses up at. If done right, it can benefit those who are actually good at what they do.

Great, but if you're not held to a contract like that then my point still stands. And if that's the case then that's just another factor we should be looking at when talking about how implementing mod sales would work.

Each situation is different though, making and selling mods isn't a conflict of interest just because you have another job in the industry, it is entirely dependent on what that job is. If you work 9-5 and do your job, what you do outside of that time doesn't matter as long as it doesn't conflict. Doing the same job in multiple ways or through multiple means isn't a conflict of interest. If it clashes with your main job legally (meaning the company is forcing you to only work for them or something) then that's a different story. But if you're not bound by that, and it doesn't take away from the company you work 905 for, then there's no reason not to. If I'm hired to work as a producer for a studio and I need to work x hours a week, it's not a conflict of interest for me to pick up other projects outside of my job as long as I am still fulfilling x amount of hours per week. I'd even say there's opportunity for bringing attention to your 9-5 job. If someone is known for making fantastic mods, what's to stop them from going "Like my stuff? Check out this game I'm working on." Works for other creative industries quite well. And hey, if you're not employed then paid mods give you the ability to develop your skills while still gaining a little bit of income. Not enough to pay the rent, but if 10 people buy your $1 model, that's a meal or two. That's my point as well. Making mods for-pay doesn't automatically change the quality or outcome of the mod. So, rather than doing it and getting next to nothing in return, why not be compensated for them? Of course it introduces problems, it's a major change. Doesn't mean it's not worth going to work and trying to create a system where paid mods works. You didn't used to pay to hear music either, but here we are. As screwed up as the music industry is (like most creative industries) paying to hear live music certainly isn't a big issue. I think you're unclear of the terminology. A cover is an exact replication. If you're adding instruments, changing parts, changing time signatures, changing styles, that's no longer a cover but rather and arrangement and would have some element of original content. Legally it's a very different beast. I acknowledge all of those issues, but you're missing my point. You're assuming I condone Steam's implementation of paid mods, and I don't. But a lot of those issues are very clear and very fixable. I think it would be completely possible to put together a system that fixes the majority of these issues. Every creative industry has people who are in it for the money and not for the passion. Your point? GTAV was clearly made by people who were passionate about making a great product and it's one of the highest rated and best-selling games of all time. If you're passionate about games then money isn't going to make you go "Oh well screw passion then, what's the quickest way to make a buck in this industry that I've loved for so many years and now wish to exploit?" If you're argument here is that money means more bad products and less good products that's just not the case. I agree, but only if we work with Steam's system. It is not the only way to implement paid mods. Just because Steam screwed the pooch on their first try doesn't mean that it's a bad idea for paid mods to become acceptable. All your points are based off of Steam's model, and yet we have several other industries showing how this can work just fine. The issue isn't paid mods, the issue is how they were implemented in this scenario. In essence my entire argument is simply this: paid mods isn't a bad idea. Steam's implementation of paid mods is a bad idea.

You're... passionate about this, huh? You'll have better luck if you rename this thread to "Dwarf model" instead of just "LOTR models" then, as that seems much less daunting and way more specific, it'll get more attention. On top of that I'd suggest posting reference pictures in your first post so people know exactly what you're looking for. If they can see it and don't have to search for references themselves then there's a higher chance of someone picking it up.