Actually I’ve always been bothered by the saying “the dark side” I always felt that the Sith should just say “the Force” emphasizing they think the Force is a tool to use, not good or evil, since I’m sure they don’t believe they are evil.

Good riddance, I say. Uncle Owen may have been a short-sighted curmudgeon, and the Smitts went and got their planet blowed up, but they’re both a far sight better parents than than that weepy little Nabooan Coruscanti Princess.

Amidala could have been saved by Anakin getting a valid therapist in the first place.

That is where the Jedi failed him. Their austere celibate lifestyle was incompatible with what Anakin really needed. Yoda felt that one coming but didn’t recognize it until too late.

And all hail the full-fledged derail

In quick reference to the SW thing though… why would you think that *any* of the Jedi could’ve saved Amidala? Even Palpatine didn’t have the knowledge to do that, the one Sith that did have the knowledge and power to prevent death hoarded that knowledge, never passing it on. No one could’ve prevented it given how quickly it happened after that. You can actually make all of the other twists and have it come out alright, but you can’t posit that Amidala could’ve been saved by anyone. Especially since the one loophole that does get discovered is only known to Obi-wan and Yoda, is only discovered *after* the fact, and does in fact require that they die first

What I find more interesting is how much people can talk about even the least amount of actual topic

And Morgan, let’s not leap to conclusions about what revisionist history has brought to the real Star Wars lore

Cross-reference “Montessori” with “concentration” and “repetition”.

Not sure what to call it. I can’t call it repetition, but this game gives you a desire to explore. Maybe when you make a game, you want to imagine that your game’s so good, that it naturally gives players a reason to explore simply through its story, game play, or whatever.

But as a game developer, you also have to understand that the urge to explore can be a game element itself. You can depend on the fact that the player has just been intrigued by you, intentionally, and you can give a reason for the player to go back and look at things twice.

Honestly, this sounds like a pretty great way to develop a game. It can save development time. If you got the right system built, you can change the game or area enough each time around as to where the player never feels like they’re repeating the same thing, even if on your end, only minor changes are made each replay.

Try right-clicking.

I didn’t say fatal.