Brasil

It should be noted that there's one Isle I missed. Hunter's Isle. It's really quite fantastic, with a not-quite-full moon, clouds...it definitely feels like some type of stalker's paradise. There are massive stones strewn about a few of the assault areas--picture one of the areas in front of the outer wall in Warrior's or Wizard's Isle, only with huge rocks littering the landscape...once I'm able to post pics, this will make more sense, I think. Basically, the area seems especially tailored for Rangers...which makes sense, I think, given the title. There are a lot of higher ground sniping positions, and the boulders strewn about work as cover for attackers, I'd imagine. Wizard's Isle is ideal for spellcasters...nice wide open, depressed courtyards surrounded by walkways...prime space to confine enemies with AoE spells.

[QUOTE=r2vq]I have to stand by my old post. And it's actually because of Descartes successors that I have to. Immanuel Kant argued that we can only know objects as they "appear" in time and space rather than the "things in themselves". Transcendental Idealism. Since our minds, eyes, noses, and other sensual organs influence what we experience, they are all subjective. In that sense nothing that we experience is the "thing in itself" but an interpretation of it. We never "see" the original object because we would have to recreate it [b]exactly[/b] to call it the [u]original[/u] object. If we cannot recreate it exactly, it is not the original object, but a perception of it. When we see the original valley, what we are experiencing is light bouncing off the objects in front of us and into our eyes. Our eyes converts the light into impulses transferable to the brain. The brain then converts it into information. Along that process, the brain, the eye, and anything affecting the light (like glasses) affects what we experience. We can never take in its original form because of these things that affect what we see.[/quote] Then wouldn't that be saying this red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball isn't entirely what we perceive it to be? If our sensory data is so limited as to open up such a wide argument about "original" objects versus "perceived" objects, is that red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball not going to remain a red, rubbery, medium-sized dodgeball when it's flung at our heads? I don't see how someone could argue that they're not experiencing the "original" dodgeball when they're getting knocked out in gym class. lol I won't argue that there aren't minute physical differences in how people (and animals) perceive things. To do that would be inane and pointless, because dogs can see in a much wider spectrum than humans can. But light spectrums are largely irrelevant for what we're discussing here, because the focus of this discussion is centered squarely on what humans can perceive (or not perceive), and largely, how a human actually sees the world around them (in the physical sense) is dependent on where they're standing. For example, Verne Troyer and Mike Myers view the physical world differently, but only because of their body sizes. It's a matter of perspective, not perception. If Mini-Me can't see over a table, while Dr. Evil can, they're viewing the table differently, sure, but that doesn't mean they're not viewing the original (and the same) table. There may be something on that table (like a mini-piano) that Mini-Me doesn't know is there, but is that a sensory data limitation or merely a limitation of physical perspective? [quote]The proof that we do not have the original valley in our minds is that what may be on the other side of a hill is still a mystery. What may be hidden beneath the grass may surprise us. If the [b]original[/b] valley were in our mind, this would not happen since we have the entire valley perceived. But since we can only see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the valley to a point, we do not know the original valley. We only know our perceptions. If I were to know the original valley, it would have to be recreated exactly in my mind. And due to subjective nature of our own senses, that is impossible. -ArV[/QUOTE] You're saying our perception is limited because we can't see through solid objects? We don't have the original valley because the grass may be covering something? Or because there may be something beyond one of the hills? Again, this brings me back to one of my initial points that this kind of idea (our senses can entirely deceive us) is best left to popular entertainment, because Superman can see through solid objects (except lead). Neo can punch holes in the very fabric of the Matrix (which in itself is a fabrication). Because if we were to actually incorporate that philosophy into our daily lives, we wouldn't get anything done, because we'd be doubting nearly every single thing we experience. And like I said before, is it ("it" being the valley example) a metaphysical perceptual issue or just a simple matter of physical perspective, in that we can't see something because we're just too far away, or not at the right angle, and not because our senses are primitive?

I took about an hour or so earlier and zipped through the dozen or so different Guild halls. What I was most surprised with was the distinctness between them. I half-expected most of them to just be "palette swaps," but they're not...oh my, they're not. I'm going to really break everything down here. Figure a handful of pics per Guild hall. [center][b]Warrior's Isle[/b]: [center][url="http://img297.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1061ke.jpg"][img]http://img297.echo.cx/img297/8338/gw1061ke.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img155.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1077sj.jpg"][img]http://img155.echo.cx/img155/8730/gw1077sj.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img281.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1107rx.jpg"][img]http://img281.echo.cx/img281/9361/gw1107rx.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img281.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1124xi.jpg"][img]http://img281.echo.cx/img281/2039/gw1124xi.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img68.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1158lq.jpg"][img]http://img68.echo.cx/img68/2157/gw1158lq.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img68.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1179zm.jpg"][img]http://img68.echo.cx/img68/4978/gw1179zm.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Wizard's Isle[/b]: [url="http://img171.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1212yg.jpg"][img]http://img171.echo.cx/img171/4167/gw1212yg.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img171.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1222ov.jpg"][img]http://img171.echo.cx/img171/8725/gw1222ov.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img13.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1245ht.jpg"][img]http://img13.echo.cx/img13/2765/gw1245ht.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img13.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1255rh.jpg"][img]http://img13.echo.cx/img13/8209/gw1255rh.th.jpg[/img][/url] [/center] [b]Frozen Isle[/b]: [url="http://img296.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1285oq.jpg"][img]http://img296.echo.cx/img296/5797/gw1285oq.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img296.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1268nn.jpg"][img]http://img296.echo.cx/img296/1439/gw1268nn.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img247.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1300pl.jpg"][img]http://img247.echo.cx/img247/8261/gw1300pl.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img247.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1296yq.jpg"][img]http://img247.echo.cx/img247/3596/gw1296yq.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Nomad's Isle[/b]: [url="http://img247.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1359ti.jpg"][img]http://img247.echo.cx/img247/3695/gw1359ti.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img247.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1368rf.jpg"][img]http://img247.echo.cx/img247/350/gw1368rf.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img247.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1376kg.jpg"][img]http://img247.echo.cx/img247/3848/gw1376kg.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img208.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1443bg.jpg"][img]http://img208.echo.cx/img208/7590/gw1443bg.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Druid's Isle[/b]: [url="http://img150.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1487eu.jpg"][img]http://img150.echo.cx/img150/5048/gw1487eu.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1513yi.jpg"][img]http://img145.echo.cx/img145/8418/gw1513yi.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1530rm.jpg"][img]http://img145.echo.cx/img145/7682/gw1530rm.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1548kw.jpg"][img]http://img145.echo.cx/img145/3971/gw1548kw.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1558wm.jpg"][img]http://img145.echo.cx/img145/4660/gw1558wm.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Isle of the Dead[/b]: [url="http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1569ve.jpg"][img]http://img145.echo.cx/img145/118/gw1569ve.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Burning Isle[/b]: [url="http://img270.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1605eh.jpg"][img]http://img270.echo.cx/img270/6782/gw1605eh.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img215.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1714zl.jpg"][img]http://img215.echo.cx/img215/7784/gw1714zl.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img215.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1707ih.jpg"][img]http://img215.echo.cx/img215/2120/gw1707ih.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img215.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1725su.jpg"][img]http://img215.echo.cx/img215/2258/gw1725su.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1744wu.jpg"][img]http://img173.echo.cx/img173/7899/gw1744wu.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1731pw.jpg"][img]http://img173.echo.cx/img173/3108/gw1731pw.th.jpg[/img][/url] [/center] So...there you have it. All of the guild halls, I believe. I only took one of the Isle of the Dead, because Catacombs bore me to tears, and I've played the Isle of the Dead before in a BWE, and it wasn't all that great. Too many repeating textures and there's a huge tar pit in the center that was more an annoyance than strategic benefit/detriment. [center][b][u]***EDIT***[/u][/b][/center] I'm posting pics of Hunter's Isle below. [center][b]Hunter's Isle[/b]:[/center] [center] [/center] [center][URL=http://img138.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1831qh.jpg][IMG]http://img138.echo.cx/img138/4166/gw1831qh.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img138.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1860op.jpg][IMG]http://img138.echo.cx/img138/5123/gw1860op.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img138.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1851bn.jpg][IMG]http://img138.echo.cx/img138/8519/gw1851bn.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/center] [center][URL=http://img138.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1841yp.jpg][IMG]http://img138.echo.cx/img138/1443/gw1841yp.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img138.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw1872sf.jpg][IMG]http://img138.echo.cx/img138/1513/gw1872sf.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/center]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Yup, I definitely haven't studied any of those, but I really don't care if you have.[/color][/quote] Chabi, had you studied anything related to Rationalism, Empiricism, etc., the article wouldn't be as interesting to begin with. Fact remains that the article there isn't providing any new, groundbreaking, or revolutionary ideas about anything..."reveal great truths and break great misconceptions, challenge the way of things" etc., my ***. lol It's just misquoting an older philosophy. [quote][color=#004a6f]Okay, that's good to hear.[/color][/quote] So what became of your original point here? Your original point that I wasn't "fair" in my assessment of the invalidity of the article's "points"? [quote][color=#004a6f]Well, obviously this isn't an idea we're supposed to dwell on. I'm definitely not devoting my life to it, I just think it's an interesting way of looking at things. Whether or not our world is "real" ( though I do believe it is), or different than what we sense, we should just keep living our lives normally in accordance to what we percieve. Stepping in front of a moving vehicle will cause serious injury or death, and since both are most unpleasant, you avoid them, whether they're real or not.[/color][/quote] Obviously isn't an idea we're supposed to dwell on? The guy wrote an entire book on that [i]one idea[/i], Chabi...that's pretty strong evidence that we're supposed to really dwell on that one idea. And that one idea has been proven wrong in just about every way possible in this thread. And I don't see what relevance your final sentence there has, because...the proof that Solipsism is a load of horse**** is the moving vehicle test. Bad idea to step in front of a moving vehicle. Why? Because you will get injured...and physical injury proves Solipsism (and the author's "point") wrong. The very fact that death can result from an 18-wheeler (or even a Honda Civic) running someone over would make any statements like "[color=#004a6f]and since both are most unpleasant, you avoid them, whether they're real or not[/color]" utterly irrelevant, because the only way for those events to be unpleasant is if those events actually happen...which is the complete antithesis of Solipsism. In fact, it utterly castrates the entire idea behind Solipsism. Same thing when someone's in combat. We've seen what happens to soldiers when bullets rip through their bodies. Those bullets aren't imaginary. Those soldiers aren't imaginary. Those wounds and missing limbs aren't imaginary.

Awesome to hear you're enjoying it, Mitch. The game is really quite glorious. ^_^ To turn the HUD off, you can either hold Shift and hit Print Screen, which will just take a screenshot without the HUD. Or, you can hit Control, Shift, and H and turn it off altogether. Just repeat the keystroke (Ctrl, Shift, H) to re-activate the HUD. Desbreko and I (hmmm...seems like Desi's on more than any of us) ran a few quests earlier today. I'm happy to say I'm now in Lion's Arch with Jade Ashland, my Necro/Warrior. Everyone else is a bit behind, hehe. Speaking of Necros, Well of Blood is a very handy spell to have, especially if you're facing off against Necro-based creatures using Bone Summon spells in PvE. If you've got the timing right, you can use Well of Blood to "use" the corpses of your enemies to prevent any Bone Horror summons. It's a neat little tactic that Desi and I figured out as we were fighting Abominations up around Dragon's Gullet in Post-Searing. And Well of Blood is also an AoE Health regen spell, so any party members, pets, etc., within its coverage will get a nice regen boost. ^_^

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Now now, there's no need for prafinity.[/color][/quote] Pardon my "prafinity," but the article [i]is[/i] a load of horse****. lol [quote][color=#004a6f]Yes it would indeed be absurd, if the author did infact say that, which he did not.[/color][/quote] Believe it or not, that is precisely what he's saying. [quote][color=#004a6f]Note the word "original", though the use of it may be somewhat incorrect. I think he means that if we want to see something huge in its intirety and it's original size, we must be of "colossal dimensions". When you look at someone from far away, they appear quite small don't they? Their head could even fit between your thumb and index finger. To see their intire body up close, in it's true size, you would indeed have to be quite a bit larger than them, wouldn't you?[/color][/quote] Let's break that excerpt down. First, [quote]Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long.[/quote] You and I both see a valley several miles long. [quote]If he claims that he sees the original valley[/quote] We claim we see the original valley. [quote]Then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles.[/quote] We claim we see the original valley, but are our "visual centers" (a term that the author still does not define, even in the later "chapters") occupying an area of several square miles? I think not. We can see into the horizon, but our visual cortex (if that's what he's referring to) stays the same size 100% of the time. His statement is false. [quote]If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/quote] Because we claim to see the "original" valley, does that mean our arms, legs, organs, etc., are insanely huge? I don't know about you, but I'm quite average height, with an average build, with limbs that are no longer than most men--well, maybe [i]one[/i] of my organs is bigger than most. ~_^ But because I claim to see the "original" valley, I must be several miles tall? I'm not several miles tall, yet I still see the original valley. [i]Everything[/i] in that excerpt points [i]exclusively[/i] to the author referring [i]quite directly[/i] to a [i]totally literal and physical[/i] bit of stretchy logic, Chabi. He's not trying to be figurative at all. He's being completely serious and when he says our bodies would be miles tall...he means our bodies would be miles tall. He refers to the [i]physical[/i] size of the [i]perceiver's[/i] "visual center." He refers to the [i]physical[/i] size of the [i]perceiver's[/i] body. What you're describing is a matter of physical perspective (think art perspective). What he's talking about is a matter of metaphysical perception. [quote][color=#004a6f]To see their intire [sic] body up close, in it's true size, you would indeed have to be quite a bit larger than them, wouldn't you?[/color][/quote] No, you would just have to move closer to them. Actual body size has very little to do with seeing things from a distance--unless you're morbidly obese and trying to see your toes. [color=#004a6f] [/color][quote][color=#004a6f]I'm fairly certain the use of the term "locked up room" is metaphorical. Our brains certainly aren't rooms, and there certainly isn't an actual lock on them. It's just to imply that one is trapped within one's own mind, and that one only has access to the world through one's own senses and their brain's perception.[/color][/quote] Who's calling it an actual, physical room with a lock on the door? I'm certainly not. [quote]Your brain is a locked room which you can never step out of, because everything you imagine to be the "outside world" in reality consists of perceptions you experience in the visual or hearing centers of your brain. You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists. You can watch the electrical signals arriving at the brain's visual center, but you can never see those signals' true source. You literally watch the cinema screen on the walls of your "room," but can never directly experience the originals of those images.[/quote] Translation: Your mind as a prison...and our mind isn't a prison, because going back to that speeding train...if we see a speeding train coming at us, chances are, there's a speeding train coming at us. Only in extreme cases (i.e., schizophrenia, delusional psychosis, paranoia, etc) will that come into question...and those extreme cases are too few and far between for the author's "points" to hold water for us "real life" people. [color=#004a6f] [/color][quote][color=#004a6f]Relevance to what?[/color][/quote] Real life. To claim that we don't experience "real matter," that things are all just perceptions in our brain, to flirt heavily--almost devoting oneself entirely--with Solipsism...has absolutely no relevance to real life, because that takes what is almost guaranteed to be a purely figurative/affective idea of perceptual faults and twists it into a mutilated "The External World Does Not Exist" mantra is as irrelevant to real life as one can get, because in real life, the external world definitely exists, because the external world (i.e., the physical realm) can (and will) physically hurt you if you give it the opportunity. That's why. [quote][color=#004a6f]Edit: I'm not saying I neccessarily agree with the article, I just think it's an intersting idea to discuss.[/color][/QUOTE] Interesting? Only if you haven't studied Descartes, Rationalism, Empiricism...basically every single thing that Zidargh listed in his post early on in the thread.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Wow, it's nice seeing this topic actually sparked some discussion. Go Philosophy! Anyway.... While some of us took the author's statement about this metaphorically, others took it literally. Okay, no problem. Literally speaking, I think it's still a possibility that our world doesn't exist. If you can dream that something is touching you, you actually feel it, but it's not actually there, then what proof is there that what you feel now is real? I had a dream once that a panda pounced on me and started licking my feet (okay, wierd...). I felt the panda's weight on my back and his slobber on my feet. But it wasn't real. So then why would I feel it? Well, obviously my senses were tricking me. But then couldn't they be tricking me right now while I'm awake? Dreams show that you don't need stimuli to actually feel things. Couldn't this world of ours be just a dream? And then there's the idea of whether matter exists or not, and we're all agreeing that it does indeed exist. But then, what is matter? Okay, it's that which has mass and occupies space. But is it really accupying space? But that's according to our senses. Space is what we feel as emptiness, and matter is what we feel as solid. But what if it's not like that in reality? What if space is solid and matter isn't, but our senses trick us into percieving it that way? Yeah I know, crazy. If the truck moving towards me isn't really matter, then why would I get crushed by it? That would only work if all our senses and their stimuli interact in such a mixed up manner to make us percieve it this way.[/color][/QUOTE] Chabi, while the panda dream is...er...interesting, it's ultimately a lousy example, because there's a very real difference between dreaming you're getting hit by a truck versus actually getting hit by a truck. And that's pretty much why that entire article is a load of horse****. The guy's trying to say that in order for us to see great distances, our bodies must also cover great distances--which is absurd in and of itself. He says that our brains are essentially locked rooms, and that we don't experience "real matter"--which is absurd in and of itself. He's making an argument that holds little validity or relevance to begin with, an argument best left to popular entertainment like Dark City, The Matrix, eXistenZ, etc.

Some Guild Wars pics. ^_^ The game is fantastic, and it looks absolutely gorgeous, even with my minimalist graphics settings. [center][URL=http://img168.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0092na.jpg][IMG]http://img168.echo.cx/img168/3797/gw0092na.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img168.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0221nm.jpg][IMG]http://img168.echo.cx/img168/4008/gw0221nm.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img168.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0632wr.jpg][IMG]http://img168.echo.cx/img168/5246/gw0632wr.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img168.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0690nv.jpg][IMG]http://img168.echo.cx/img168/1309/gw0690nv.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img76.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0746xe.jpg][IMG]http://img76.echo.cx/img76/9171/gw0746xe.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img76.echo.cx/my.php?image=gw0831xm.jpg][IMG]http://img76.echo.cx/img76/6062/gw0831xm.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/center] As a side-note, Desi and I wiped out a whole herd of Hydras (rather tough Fire-based enemies with massive Knockdown abilities) up in the northern region of Ascalon earlier tonight. I nabbed a few screenies from it; I'll post them later. At one point in the (carefully planned) slaughter, we came to the realization that we were smack-dab in the middle of their spawn point.

[quote name='Dragonboym2][color=Blue]We don't need anymore boy band stuff. A while ago, that's all it was. [u][b]Thank God we had real musicans like[/b][/u] Godsmack, Rob Zombie, and [u][b]Linkin Park[/b][/u'] to help us throught that time of crisis. [/color][/quote] Quoted for absurdity. Backstreet Boys are derivative as hell, but it's not like Linkin Park is any less derivative...they're just derivative in another "genre" of music.

[QUOTE=r2vq]I believe, the point isn't that our brains are supposed to be expanding. The point is that we are limited. And we just cannot experience something [i]as is[/i]. We cannot recreate something in our head [i]exactly[/i] because we would have to recreate it, practically physically. Our brains process what we perceive through our senses and convert it into knowledge and experience. Everything in our head is logic and experience and therefore we shall never experience something perfectly [i]as is[/i]. -ArV[/QUOTE] There's no figurative meaning in what the author says, though. The figurative meaning would be what you're saying, that our perceptions are limited, and that our visual centers, body parts, etc., aren't really required to be huge. But nothing the author was saying was meant to be figurative. That's the key point here. He's treating it as totally literal. [quote][i]Here we are referring only to someone who glimpses a car. Consider a person seeing a valley several miles long. If he claims that he sees the original valley, then his visual center must, in the same way, occupy an area of at least several square miles. If so, then the person' brain, internal organs, arms and legs must all be proportionate-and of colossal dimensions.[/i][/quote] The author makes some disastrous leap from a person seeing a valley that measures a few miles long, to that person's "visual center" occupying the same space or more, and then from that to a faulty conclusion that because the "visual center" (and he doesn't even define what that term means from what I can tell) must be miles wide, the [i]physical[/i] (i.e., literal) parts of the person's body must also be huge. That is faulty logic, and I think Morpheus' reaction to it is a valid one, because the author was not intending any figurative metaphors...he has been focusing almost exclusively on the physicality of perception. And the above statement only confirms this.

[quote name='r2vq']The Television that you watch something on is also modified by the camera that is recording it. The camera can only record certain things in time and space. It is not the actual subject that is inside the television set. It is not the actual subject that is being experienced.[/quote] Exactly why Morpheus was like "WTF mate?!?" If we were to treat the original author's statements as having any validity whatsoever, everything we use to perceive our environments would be radically changing in size all the time, whether it be TV, our optic nerves, our cerebral cortex, our cameras, our photographs...the list goes on into infinity. Clearly, that's not happening, so that would make the original author's statements completely incorrect. Our brains aren't expanding to the size of a small country when we tour the countryside, after all.

I laugh whenever I see someone take Solipsism a bit too far. Even Descartes, who mildly flirted with "I think therefore I am" (proving the Internal mind exists but claiming it's impossible to prove the External exists) never said: [quote]Your brain is a locked room which you can never step out of, because everything you imagine to be the "outside world" in reality consists of perceptions you experience in the visual or hearing centers of your brain. You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists. You can watch the electrical signals arriving at the brain's visual center, but you can never see those signals' true source. You literally watch the cinema screen on the walls of your "room," but can never directly experience the originals of those images.[/quote] Because that's just taking things too far. That basically amounts to "nothing you see, hear, touch, experience is real." Brain is a locked room my butt. lol And really, I think that's the biggest problem with the entire idea of the Internal vs the External. People take it way too literally. Yes, Descartes' wax experiment was a literal development on the conflict between Internal and External, but any sound and rational person wouldn't use that to jump into some outrageous argument like the provided article. The writer challenges us to prove him wrong, to prove that the external world actually exists...I'd invite him to step in front of a moving vehicle. That in itself is proof the external world exists, I'd think, because when you get run over by an 18-wheeler...I don't think Solipsism is going to help you survive. Yes, one could counter that with "The perceptions of the perceivers of the event create the perception that the man is dead." But they'd be missing the point, because if the physical body doesn't move...to [i]anyone's[/i] perception...what does that say about Solipsism? That it's wrong, perhaps? lol. That there's definitely an external realm that we can see and fully experience in the most physical sense possible? [quote]You can never get past those perceptions and experience directly what we refer to as "real matter"-if such a thing even exists.[/quote] If you walk in front of a tanker truck speeding at 50 miles per hour, you're going to experience directly "real matter," as that "real matter" shatters a few of your bones, crushes your legs, cracks your skull open, etc. While the idea that nothing we see/touch/taste/smell/hear is real is certainly entertaining...it's only that. Entertainment. Like The Matrix. A better, more sound application of that idea ("limited perceptions") is in affections...how an event affects us. For example, while a friend of mine may perceive the Hayden Christiansen digital edit in RotJ as disgusting and horrible, I may not have a problem with it. And really, [i]that's[/i] the real idea behind the perception debate. Any other times you hear some nut ranting about how bumper-to-bumper traffic on a local highway during rush hour doesn't really exist...just write them off completely. No matter what they say, just write them off completely, because they're trying to argue something that misses the point [i]entirely[/i].

[QUOTE=snarktastic][color=Indigo]Hey, go tell my high school English teacher that. Heh. To be honest, though, there isn't really a set number of basic plots. There are anywhere from 3 to 36(!), depending on whom you ask. I just picked the seven, though, because that's what I remember from high school... all those years ago.[/color][/QUOTE] Heh, well I'd wonder then why your English teacher is telling you about seven plot types. And now that I think about it...what we're talking about here isn't even plots at all to begin with. They're concepts, the core story. They're the overarching theme to the piece. I think I good example to illustrate what I mean is to talk about cinema, as one of the foci of this thread is more modern narratives. The idea of plot vs story can be broken down into something like this: The story is the idea, the concept, why the story happens. The plot is the series of events that propels the story forward. Example: Say you have a Man vs Self story, where a guy wants to get his life together, make something of himself. Maybe just a simple goal of getting a new job. His desire to get a new job, his goal, is basically what the story is. The [i]plot[/i], however, is what happens as he tries to get that job. Say he goes to the job interview and see a younger man interviewing for the same job. Turns out, this younger guy is, bizarrely, even more qualified for it than the main character, and now the chances of our main character getting this job have just decreased dramatically--and perhaps he doesn't get a call-back. That's a plot complication. What he does after that determines how the plot is going to develop after that. Is he going to interview for another job? Sit on his ass and drink himself stupid? Go golfing for a day? Whatever he does, it has to propel the story forward, so interviewing for another job would be a wise development, but golfing would be, as well, because it's something constructive for the character to do and isn't a cliche...like the drinking heavily option. lol And really, I think that's an important idea for discussion about older texts vs newer ones, because for the most part, those same fundamentals apply. Solid characters are a must; logical plot is a necessity; good writing, absolute. Why do we think of older texts as being better? Well, I think AzureWolf answered that fairly well, but I think there's more to it than just a time thing, because people do highly value modern narratives and films today. The most basic reason we see The Odyssey as totally bitchin is because today we have things like Ben Affleck. There were stock characters throughout literary history, sure, but never did we ever have "I'm the bull. You'da cow!!" I think there is a difference in quality, lol. Even though I do agree with what Tony said about comparing cinema to 1,000-page texts...there's definitely a difference in the quality of the writing generally, I'd think.

snarktastic, quick little thing. There really aren't seven different plots in fiction...because many of those can be condensed fairly dramatically. [quote][color=Indigo] 1. Man vs. nature 2. Man vs. man 3. Man vs. the environment 4. Man vs. machines/technology 5. Man vs. the supernatural 6. Man vs. self 7. Man vs. god/religion[/color][/quote] I'm not sure where you're getting seven, because there are only three plot concepts: 1. Man vs. Man 2. Man vs. Nature 3. Man vs. Self Man vs Supernatural is the same fundamental thing as Machines/Technology, as is god/religion...and actually, nowhere in my coursework have I ever heard of Man vs [i]Religion[/i]...because religion itself is not an antagonist. God, sure, that's a conflict, as we see in Augustine's Confessions, but religion? Not really. There's no difference between Supernatural and Machines/Technology. While "Supernatural" is understood to refer to ghosts, goblins, and Esquimos, etc...generally speaking, "supernatural" refers to anything unnatural--which would include Machines, god, etc...even to the extent of man's inner psyche (which would be the Man vs Self), because that is largely ephemeral. And the plot of Man vs God would also fall into Man vs. Self, because the reason Augustine (and others) wrote Confessions is a personal guilt/redemption...to help themselves overcome personal inner conflict. Man vs. Nature isn't separate from Man vs. Environment, either...because "environment" can really only refer to two types of surroundings. One, it refers to the actual jungle and nature, which would fall under the "Man vs. Nature" plot. Two, it refers to the so-called "concrete jungle," which would fall under the "Man vs. Man," plot, because cities are symbolic of civilized man overcoming the savage lands, as it were, and thus conflict there would become a man fighting his fellow men...because there aren't tigers, Humbaba, etc., lumbering about in cedar forests. I'd agree that those seven different plot categories do exist--but only when you're really making more complicated and subtle distinctions. When talking about basic plot concepts, though...only three of them.

If you're looking for free hosting, Photobucket and Imageshack rock. [url]www.photobucket.com[/url] [url]www.imageshack.us[/url]

Well, satan665, my point is that while the franchise name (like Mario, for example) definitely gets players interested, gamers aren't going to eat up every single Mario game, for various reasons, the biggest reason being the quality of the game. I'd use the Mortal Kombat series as an example. There's no denying that MKI was something of a gaming wonder. It introduced a visually interesting style, using digitized actors instead of Street Fighter's character sprites; it injected a level of gore previously unseen in the fighting genre; MKI also had a very dark sense of humor: "GET OVER HERE!!!", "FINISH HIM!", the absurd and outlandish twistedness of the settings...all things you never really got in the Street Fighter series. That's not to say Street Fighter didn't have its fair share of absurdity, though, because well, Blanka. haha But even though its gameplay was incredibly simple (it was basically a suped-up Karate Champ), Mortal Kombat I was incredibly fun, because it was so in-your-face. Mortal Kombat II improved upon MKI in just about every way. The combat was improved; the character animations looked much better; the graphical presentation itself was much more polished. And the game was a commercial and critical success. But then what happened? Mortal Kombat 3, while it's fun, certainly, felt sloppy and unfinished. It had some neat ideas (the Run feature, the combo system, etc), but its technical flaws and overall shoddy construction marred the gamers' response. When Ultimate MK3 was released, I know many gamers who just shrugged it off because the biggest additions were four new characters, with no real improvements to the game, no growth, and in some instances, the game ending up playing worse than its predecessors. That may have been the engine simply showing its age, but even then, the game was still becoming tired. Mortal Kombat 4 is released a few years later...and tanks miserably. Most reviews I read were more negative than positive, and in general, regardless of reviews, MK4 was total crap. Touted as the first MK game in full 3D, with new weapons-based combat, a brand new plot, new characters, etc., it failed to deliver on every single point, because we ended up with 2D/3D, in that we could hop around in the stage, sure, but we still ended up on a single plane. The weapons combat was horrid. It became more comical than serious, and didn't serve to "deepen" the combat at all. And then around the same time--actually inspired by MK4--you had the little sidegames like Mythologies, which were absolutely atrocious. The Sub-Zero game was nearly unplayable and consisted entirely of trial-and-error of the worst kind I've ever played. Special Forces bombed horribly, too, so that's another genre (Special Forces was basically Fighting Force+Jax) that Mortal Kombat just utterly failed in. So there, in the span of only four or five years, you had MK3/UMK3, which was marred by glitchy AI, graphical hiccups, sloppy gameplay, but otherwise a good game. You had MK4, which most people don't even remember, I think (myself included there--I have to force myself to remember it, else I forget it ever existed). You had Mythologies and Special Forces. In the span of four or five years, you had four atrocious Mortal Kombat-based games that most people were initially interested in because of the Mortal Kombat title, but ultimately, when they experienced the game for themselves, said "Screw that." At that point in time, Mortal Kombat looked dead in the eyes of many gamers. Then Deadly Alliance hit us and flipped that entire perception on its head. Deadly Alliance was the series' redemption; it reinvigorated the series, garnered a huge surge of interest again, and it renewed many MK vets, and even those simply disappointed by MK3/4/etc. And Deadly Alliance sold incredibly well, and was met with lavish critical praise. The gamers bought Deadly Alliance not because of Mortal Kombat, but because of the game itself. Here was a game where a Scorpion vs Sub-Zero fight became playable again. ^_^ Then you consider what MK: Deception did, bringing us a whole slew of nifty mini-games (like Puzzle Kombat, Chess Kombat) and how successful it was...quality does sell. And here in Deception, you had Puzzle Kombat and Chess, which are based on two very common game-types (Super Puzzle Fighter, for instance) but enough variation and dynamics were introduced to warrant playing them--and some buying the game simply for those mini-games. ~_^ I think Chess Kombat is probably the best example there. If asked how to convert MK into Chess a few years ago, during MK3, we might not have been able to answer. But with Deception, it's so obvious, and it works. Beautifully. Popular characters don't necessarily sell a game; quality sells a game moreso than any attractive, buxom blonde. lol EA's Bond franchise, another perfect example. You mention "EA Bond FPS," people will go "meh." You mention "EA Bond Everything or Nothing," people will smile. That's because EoN was a good game, while Nightfire was utter ****. Same thing goes with Nintendo as it does with MK. You create a high quality game, it will sell for the most part. We just can't remember too many Mario games that haven't sold incredibly well because there haven't been too many that have been lousy. The Mario Party series is probably the closest to having quality issues, and we've seen excitement about that series dwindle; just watch the Nintendo press conference at E3, heh. The crowd reaction to MP...6, 7 is noticeably subdued, then roars again when the next product is mentioned. While you may not like having Mario Tennis, Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Mario Paint, Mario Party, Mario Taliban Regime Change, etc...they're still exceptional games and sell because of it. I'd actually be interested to see what Mario Taliban Regime Change would be like. Perhaps Mario a la John Rambo...yum.

I'm also doing Guild Wars. I've got a nice, eclectic mix of characters. Once I have some time, I'll post pics of them. One is a Necromancer/Warrior named Jade Ashland. She's level 15, I think. The second is a level 9 Elementalist/Necromancer named Marlow Ashland. Yes, those two are siblings, haha. A level 8 Mesmer/Ranger named Jacob Karath is third, and rounding out the line-up, a level 9 Elementalist/Monk, Faye Noran. Drop me a Whisper when you're playin, ya'll. ^_^

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess']And me talking about Metroid like that, I wasn't quite saying that game isn't a Metroid game, I was talking in general. I see this more in games like Luigi's Mansion (I haven't played it).[/quote] Well, when you say that Metroid is "stamped all over it," I, like others here, find it difficult to believe that you meant anything other than the game wasn't really a Metroid game. [quote]To Siren, I had some difficulties with the original Metroid as well, I used Game Genie to beat it in one sitting. I didn't die enough in Super Metroid (my favorite Metroid game) for saving to be an issue. I basically went back to a save room only because I was leaving for a while. Metroid Fusion was the one where you fight an alien version of yourself, right? I think I played it for like two hours on a car trip with a friend. I think I died once and felt lucky because I only fought two easy bosses and died by the hand of monsters a few screens away from a save room.[/quote] And because of all of that, you went into Metroid Prime expecting a cakewalk, from how it sounds...but that's an unreasonable expectaction, because Prime's gameplay is classic Metroid. [quote]In any case, I did not call Metroid Prime an "uninspired franchise whoring," that's a little much.[/quote] I exaggerated to make a point, my point being that using your evaluation criteria, every game and game franchise in the history of mankind would be considered uninspired franchise whoring. While there are some games (Halo, for example) that are totally cookie-cutter games whose plot, design approach, etc., wouldn't change worth a damn if you slapped a different hero in for the lead (see Halo 2 for an example of this; the Arbiter and MC are the same character), Metroid Prime is not one of them, because it was a game [i]built[/i] for Samus, built for Samus' world, built for Samus' character, built for Samus' game. You were arguing that Metroid Prime was essentially worthless because Samus, a Nintendo stock character, was the main character, and were implying that because Samus was in Metroid Prime, that meant it wasn't really a Metroid game, because to you, it just looked like some average FPS with Metroid "stamped all over it." [quote]I'm saying that Nintendo doesn't create new characters because they won't sell like a Metroid or a Zelda would sell. Think about FF, why keep the name in every unrealted game? It won't sell, it'll be like Shadow Hearts, which sold... what? Two copies? Why didn't Prince of Persia: Sands of Time not sell, even with Splinter Cell bundled with it? Mario wouldn't sell half as well without Mario being in it, what if it was Croc in the game? We all forgot him right? Croc Sunshine, people would see that and puke on the spot. Just a thought.[/QUOTE] How is Croc a legitimate example here? The game didn't do well (and Croc long forgotten about by the majority of the gaming and developer populace) because one, the "hero" of the game was an idiot, and a poor replacement for the multitude of tired 3rd person action/adventure Crash Bandicoot-ish derivatives; two, the game suffered from lousy jump mechanics and tired, formulaic platformer levels with uninspired level design; three, the game sucked in general. Croc was easily forgotten because it was easily forgettable, because the game sucked big-time. lol I don't really know if talking about Final Fantasy is worthwhile here, either, because apart from a bad joke about the lack of "final-ness" in the 11 or so titles throughout the series, there's really nothing that can be said. You seem to want to criticize the Final Fantasy series simply on the basis of using "Final Fantasy" in the title for each game, or including recurring character names, but again, you'd have to condemn the entire gaming industry/sequel machine--and there are far worse violators going by your evaluation criterion there (like Halo, lol). Plus, unless you're Star Wars, people don't really expect a radically different title for Part II, III, etc. Do we criticize Madden 05 for having virtually the same [i]title[/i] year after year? No. We criticize Madden like we criticize most sports games: they're the same game year after year, because there's very little room for innovation and gameplay growth. It's a limited game to begin with. This is not the case with Nintendo's line-up, because Nintendo has consistently attempted to push gaming forward by testing new concepts and characters. A perfect example of Nintendo developing entirely new characters is the Pikmin franchise. Pikmin 1 became a Player's Choice almost overnight because gamers ate it up--and rightly so, because the game rocked. Yes, you can turn around and say "Well, Olimar was clearly an anagram for Mario, and his look was similar," but then you'd be nitpicking to a degree that's almost inhuman, and focusing on a detail that was an easter egg instead of a crucial design choice or feature. And similarly, Mario Kart Double Dash!! sold well because while the franchise [i]name[/i] itself garnered interest, the game [i]quality[/i] itself is what drove people to buy it--and people did buy it, to the point of Double Dash being a Player's Choice, I believe, or very close to it, and to the point of Double Dash still selling for full MRP. Mario Tennis for N64 and GC sold well and was well-received not because of the Mario in the title, and not because of a Mario cast...those games did well because they were good games, just like Paper Mario, just like Super Smash Bros, which are all examples of Nintendo not resting on its laurels when it comes to developing fun, exciting, and engaging titles, using familiar characters but at the same time, not mass-marketing to the point of those characters becoming figureheads (as is the case with Disney lately).

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess][size=1']As for Metroid Prime, I agree with you that it's a good game, the only problem I've had with it is repeating half an area from a save room 15 minutes away from a considerably hard boss. I know this is cliche of me to say, but issues like this would have upset you more if it wasn't a Metroid game, if Nostalgia didn't occur. Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in. Would the game have selled less if it didn't have Metroid stamped all over it (Ha! There's the cliche!) Even I am willing enough to play through a game for a week going "play level, pwned by boss, play level again, pwned by boss, play level, beat boss, on to next level" until I beat it. Why? Because Samus Aran is cool, and I want to see Samus roll into a ball again, and collect power up from statues, I'm just hoping it'll be fun all over again. Did they include more frequent saves in Echoes? If they did, I'll definitely play it.[/size][/quote] Do I care enough to even bother...perhaps. I don't see how anyone can say (or imply) that Metroid Prime is simply a run-of-the-mill, tired, and overdone FPS-type game that is only made original by including Samus. It's almost as if you're saying that because it features Samus, it's not really a Metroid game at its core? Where's the logic in that? Metroid Prime from the ground up is a total Metroid game, even down to the control scheme itself...you can look at how the side-scrolling games control, particularly Super Metroid and Fusion, and map them almost directly into the GC controller, with at most changing the physical location of one or two buttons. Other than the obvious controller casing differences, the control schemes in Prime and its predecessors are identical...how is Prime not a Metroid game? I mean, it's not as if Nintendo/Retro Studioes simply took Dinosaur Planet and slapped in Star Fox characters. ~_^ [quote][size=1]Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in.[/size][/quote] So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're basically saying a Legend of Zelda game isn't really Zelda...it's just Ratchet and Clank + Link? That's absurd. lol Wind Waker was a Zelda game. Ocarina of Time was a Zelda game. Metroid Prime was Metroid through and through. Fusion felt odd at times, but that's because the plot was odd to begin with...but Fusion is still classic Metroid at its core. And about the save points, well, that's kind of the idea, isn't it? I mean, historically, Metroid games have always had save points sprinkled throughout (except the NES original), so there was always a fair amount of backtracking/travel to and from boss lairs and so forth. You go into a Metroid game expecting that to an extent. Granted, the difficulty in Prime was a bit harsh sometimes, but I never found it to be more difficult than Super Metroid, NES Metroid, or even Fusion at points, and Fusion was much easier than most games in the series. And...I don't see how you can criticize Metroid Prime for being so-called "uninspired franchise whoring" and then place Halo above it. Not to start any war here or anything, but if you want to talk about uninspired franchises...on the criterion of formulaic game design...Halo trumps just about everything known to man. lol

[quote name='Zeta']Is there concrete proof that it wasn't Siren? You haven't provided me proof of this either. What I have been saying, and have been saying all along, is that it is a half and half fault. The Jedi for allowing themselves to think extrememly high of themselves, diminishing their abilities, which allowed the Dark Side to effectively cloud what little control over their abilities they had left. The Jedi Order has basically stayed the same in its fundamental beliefs and teachings, and not once has it resulted in the Republic being overthrown and the galaxy being thrown into the darkness it is. But when a Dark Lord of the Sith is on the scene in the Jedi's backyard, only then does it occur. It is a 50-50 laying of the blame Siren. Proof? Read the novels. Read the Clone Wars books, specifically Labryinth of Evil and Revenge of the Sith itself. As you said it yourself Siren. Lucas stresses points that are important. He stressed the importance in the movies, and it is stressed in the books.[/quote] Clone Wars books=EU. I don't use the EU when talking about the films (or material, ideas, concepts, etc. of the films), because the EU does not reflect Lucas' original intent with the original films ("original films" referring to the original concepts and ideas), because the EU was barely the comic book adaptations, if that. Lucas fought for sequel rights, merchandising, etc. back in the 70s, yes, which would indicate a consideration to further extension of Star Wars, but a New Jedi Order was not on his mind back when he was writing the original Saga, nor were Sith Lords circa KotOR, nor were post-RotJ possessions (The Exorcist in Star Wars? Lucas isn?t that cheesy lol), nor was the history of the Old Republic before the Saga begins...nothing in the EU, Zeta. The Saga was written as entirely self-contained, especially the OT. Do you know why Obi-Wan repeats "point of view" throughout the OT? Because "point of view" is the reason the Jedi Council and Old Republic fell, and Obi-Wan realized that after reflecting upon what happened. Look at who he hears "point of view" from in the Prequels: Qui-Gon, Count Dooku, Anakin. These are characters that challenge the Jedi Council's worldview, and clearly had a profound impact on Obi-Wan's worldview, as evidenced by his behavior and dialogue in the OT. In the Prequels, he is very adamant and steadfast in his beliefs, criticizing Anakin, insulting politicians, etc., and this is the same type of attitude demonstrated by the Jedi Council. They are limited by their point of view, and it is this point of view of theirs in the Prequels that leads to their downfall, because if their point of view wasn't the only issue in the Prequels, Obi-Wan would not be repeating "point of view" so much in the OT. What do you think Obi-Wan?s ?you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view? was referring to? What truths could he be talking about? I?d say one of those truths could definitely be ?Dark Side clouds everything,? because it?s the Jedi Council?s rationalization for failure?it?s a truth to them, but ultimately, a truth that depends greatly on their own point of view. And the expressing of that Jedi truth, the ?Dark Side clouding everything? truth, begins to diminish throughout the Prequels to the point of not even appearing as a possibility anymore, and interestingly enough, the only two characters who could have said anything about a possible Dark Side attribution to a Jedi failure in the Prequels (Obi-Wan and Yoda) don?t say anything. And we both agree that when Lucas wants to emphasize something, he?ll repeat it ad nauseum through the Saga, like ?point of view.? We must hear that phrase at least three or four times in Episode III alone. And I?d think we?ll also both agree that he only mentioned ?Dark Side clouds everything? twice in the 6 films, thrice at most, and only in the Prequels. There?s a reason for that, and it depends on the limits of perception, specifically ?the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.? The Dark Side doesn?t cloud anything, because that truth was a truth only to the Jedi point of view of the Prequels, back before they realized they were blinding themselves. And Dooku?s dialogue in Episode II, while it seems like a confirmation of the Dark Side clouding the Jedi vision, is actually just as unreliable as a statement from the Jedi Council, because of point of view yet again. Palpatine was playing Dooku for a fool the entire time, telling him exactly what he needed to hear/know/say/etc so Palpatine could accomplish what he wanted, and come Episode III, Dooku?s usefulness had waned, and we saw what happened there, hehe. So it?s entirely likely that Dooku was merely reporting what Palpatine was feeding him, so it was a truth only from Dooku?s point of view, and not necessarily the actual truth, just like the Jedi Council?s assessment. So like I?ve said before, when you take into account what we?re seeing, hearing, experiencing, in the films, and how very specific ideologies and concepts play off of each other throughout the Saga (films only; EU is crap lol), the probability that the Dark Side was even exploiting a Jedi weakness drops dramatically, to the point of being a running joke, haha. [quote]Who/what said this? After going through my posts I have failed to find where I make the claim that it is a strictly Light Side ability, and by quoting the EU. Are you talking about my post where I say that Palpatine coming back to life and taking over a clone body is the parallel to the Jedi Force Spirit? If so, then I can answer.[/quote] [quote name='Zeta']By reading the Dark Empire comics where this is found, we are told that Palpatine has to hurry himself to a clone. Otherwise his spirit will fade away. When he comes back, he doesn?t become more powerful. He is exactly what he was when he did. But the Jedi are able to stay in their ghost form, not having to worry about finding a clone/what have you to continue on. Not only does this show the Dark Side?s weakness it the ability to keep him alive after death, it shows that the Light Side is not weaker. It shows that the Jedi can survive without the use of a body; taking away weakness Palpatine has of needing a body to just be able to survive.[/quote] So you weren?t establishing a difference between the Dark Side and Light Side post-mortem abilities (in effect establishing the Force Spirit as strictly Light Side, keep in mind), through quoting the EU? [quote]Palpatine doesn't come back as a Force Spirit.[/quote] And that?s exactly why the EU is crap, especially in light of what is revealed in Episode III. [quote]Anakin does, but he isn't part of the Dark Side any longer. Palpatine found a way to cheat death, not become immortal. How he is not immortal? Because his new body can still be killed and he has to transfer to a new body quickly, otherwise he will be lost forever. Why is it so hard to believe, that Anakin being the Chosen One, the most powerful Jedi and the one who brings balance to the Force, cannot become one with the Force for exactly that reason?[/quote] But if the ability is available to the Dark Side, why would a switch to the Light Side even matter? The switch wouldn?t change anything, because there?s nothing to be changed in the first place. And again, what happens in the EU is irrelevant, because going by the films themselves, the premise of the EU post-mortem material is broken, so any reference to the EU is useless at this point. [quote]Simple answer? George Lucas didn't want anymore Jedi to disappear after death. He stopped it from happening in the later NJO books, and the Jedi that die in the prequels. He wanted to explain to us the mystery behind the Force Spirit. In all technicality, that is why we do not see them.[/quote] And the simple answer is an authorial contrivance that violates the very principles and rules set forth in the films themselves. There are no limitations to the Order of Whills. Anyone can do it, especially given what we see in the entire film Saga. [quote]Anyways...a more...on the topic answer. Where do I say it is a reward for doing good things? lol. I said Yoda and Obi-Wan become one with the Force. How? We now have the answer that Qui-Gon taught Yoda and Obi-Wan. And I repeat what I said above. Why is it so impossible to believe that Anakin, the Chosen One, who brings balance to the Force and is the most powerful Jedi has this ability for exactly that reason?[/quote] Well, when you say it?s what Light Siders get for being on the Light Side, I?d classify that as a reward. lol And it?s impossible because it?s established to be impossible by what we have in the films, and what we have in the films only further destroys a significant portion of the EU. [quote]What did Lucas pull in the Prequels to match with the EU? I am curious. We know that he completely ignored the original Clone Wars dates set forth in the Thrawn Trilogy. Why would he ignore something has important as that, but make adjustments for other things? Unless I am missing the add-ins you are talking about concerning his adjustments to accommodate the EU, please point them out to me.[/QUOTE] Order of Whills (but even this still borks the EU, despite Lucas? best efforts to ?mesh?), Dark Side clouding things (check the OT, nothing there about that, loads of stuff in the EU); the Star Wars website has a lot of things, as well. [quote]Why would he ignore something has important as that, but make adjustments for other things?[/quote] It?s called having to account for a whole boatload of discrepancies and variations and basically losing control of his creation due to merchandising and mass-marketing. Do you think the Prequels would be such plot twist trainwrecks if the EU didn?t exist? [quote]All right, in this small part I am going to be on your side. Lets only take the movies into play here, seeing as how that seems to be the only source you will accept, regardless of what we can safely assume as canon.[/quote] The reason I don?t regard the EU as anything more than Fanfiction.net sidestories is because so much of it was written so long after the original penning of the original ideas and concepts that regarding them as literarily legitimate would violate every single literature principle I?ve studied over the years. To treat the EU as being applicable in discussions about the films, I would have to view John Dryden?s ?All for Love? as relevant to what Shakespeare was doing in ?Antony and Cleopatra? (All for Love was Dryden?s ?version? of Antony and Cleopatra) and similarly, John Milton?s ?Paradise Lost? being perfectly appropriate supplementary material to the book of Genesis?and talk to any lit professor and they?ll tell you Milton was doing something entirely different than what the idea behind the book of Genesis was. Get what I mean? Creative materials written after the fact are never going to be accurate enough to warrant placing such value in them. That?s not to say All for Love and Paradise Lost are bad?far from it. They rock as fiction?but they just don?t have any weight when it comes to the source material, because they?re just as much sidestories/variations/adaptations to their source material as the EU is to Star Wars. The EU is only relevant because people have labeled it as relevant, and people are far too eager to believe ?The EU is canon as per LucasFilm? rather than actually examining the films exclusively, then comparing/contrasting the EU with/against the films and arriving at a conclusion reached independently of any LucasFilm statements. [quote]You and I both know of Palpatine's line in ROTS that says something along the lines of "to cheat death only one has mastered, but together we can find a way." And at the end of ROTJ we have Anakin coming back as a Force Spirit, but not Palpatine, but you say that Palpatine should have one too correct? At least that is what I get from this statement: Light and Dark both possessing the same Force Spirit ability, which seems to be the case now. Why do you say this? Where is your basis? Because Palpatine says they can figure it out? And because Anakin has a Force Spirit at the end? Palpatine does not. Why? He should right? Not necessarily. Palpatine has not figured out the secrets of the Force Spirit. Otherwise I am sure Lucas would have put something in there correct? But no he doesn't. Palpatine is "destroyed" on the Death Star.[/quote] You?re missing a key point here: the timespan between RotS and ANH is roughly 20 years (Luke?s age as a frame of reference)?more than enough time for both Palpy and Anakin to work it out together. And just examine it in the context of the films. What are the films telling us? Everything points (damn near confirms, really) that Palpatine has a Force Spirit, established through plot developments throughout the Saga. [quote]Which means that Anakin doesn't learn it from Palpatine. How else can Anakin then become a Force Spirit after death?[/quote] But Anakin does learn it from Palpatine. There?s no other way. [quote]He naturally has this ability. Not because he does good deeds as you claim I have said. But because he is the Chosen One. The one who brings balance to the Force.[/quote] But it?s the Order of Whills or nothing. The only reason anyone has a Force Spirit in the Saga is Order of Whills. And since it?s only Order of Whills, if Anakin has figured it out, Palpatine has, as well. [quote]And now, using this, we can bring the EU into play. Palpatine never comes back as a Force Spirit. Not once do you see a Force Spirit of him. You have him die, and then he transfers to a clone body right away. He needs a clone body to survive. Why? Because he hasn't figured out the true secret to immortal life as Obi-Wan, Yoda, Qui-Gon, and Anakin have. If Palpatine had taught Anakin the secrets of become a Force Spirit, Palpatine would have no need for the clones. All Palpatine has done is found a way to prolong his life. A life that he is not immortal in, because he can still be destroyed.[/quote] But see, you?re basing this on the idea that the EU is accurate because Palpatine wouldn?t have the same ability as Anakin, but Palpatine would (and does) have the same ability, according to the films themselves. The films give us an almost certainty that Palpatine also unlocked the Force Spirit ability same as Anakin, so to bring in the post-RotJ EU and try to counterclaim that is exceedingly foolish, because not only are you making a leap from the films to the EU that you haven?t yet justified, the films take precedent over the EU, and according to the films themselves, Palpatine has a Force Spirit?the EU is wrong by not granting Palpy his Force Spirit. Palpatine only needs a clone body because of the post-RotJ EU. He only needs to continue to place himself within clones because of the post-RotJ EU. He only never comes back as a Force Spirit because of the post-RotJ EU. And Episode III only further breaks the post-RotJ EU. [quote]My apologies if there are spelling mistakes, my word program is going whacko and I keep having to send error reports. [/quote] No worries.

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4b0082']The US version was confusing as heck if you didn't pay really close attention to the dialogue (and find the hidden cutscene with Cloud and Zack).[/color][/quote] Just a quick aside. Desi, what did you find particularly confusing about it? I mean, I rarely fully read game text nowadays, even less back then, and I never had any problem sorting out the Zack subplot. And plus, it's pretty much all explained/revealed before Jenova Death...it ties most of it up.

[quote name='Zeta']Which goes back to the Dark Side clouding everything. Have you read the novel? It only provides more truth in Yoda's line. It isn't just themselves to blame Siren, why continue to say that it is? There is ample evidence that they are not the only ones to blame. They are not 100% at fault.[/quote] What ample evidence is there, Zeta? Is there any [i]concrete proof[/i] the Dark Side was playing a part in the Jedi failure? Think about it. The Jedi Council let their abilities go soft; they became too comfortable with the idea that they were the ultimate cognition in the galaxy; they acted as if they could do no wrong (and boy, did they get quite the wake-up call)...they brought the ****storm down upon themselves. They were stagnant, like the Republic, and out of stagnancy comes destruction. [quote]Who says that the Force-ghost is a light side thing?[/quote] ...by Force-ghost I'm assuming you mean Force Spirit, and I don't have the time right now, but earlier in this very thread you stated (quoting the EU, I believe) that the Force Spirit is a Light Side ability...but it's nowhere near a Light Side ability, as shown by Episode III. [quote]Remember the little speech between Anakin and Sidious in his chambers? "To cheat death, only one has mastered. But together I am sure we will find a way." Or something similar to that end. I have no doubt in my mind that they both were able to find a way. And the fact that Anakin redeemed himself in ROTJ he no longer has the handicap of having to find a clone body to sustain himself as Palpatine does.[/quote] Fact of the matter is, Anakin could only have learned how to attain a Force Spirit while serving Palpatine, which would classify the Force Spirit itself as "universal" ability, so Dark Siders and Light Siders alike can possess one, provided they have the training. And since it's an ability that can be found in the Dark Side as well as the Light Side, "compassion instead of greed" becomes inaccurate, because the Dark Side is hardly compassionate, yet Dark Siders can have the Force Spirit ability same as Light Siders, which would effectively nullify any conjecture that Anakin had found a "loophole" of sorts in his redemption in RotJ. There is no loophole. There's just sloppy writing that doesn't "fix" anything, instead just ends up breaking things even more. lol [quote]We know that the Dark Side basically "uses" up the user, especially if they draw as upon it as heavily as Sidious does. Does that mean this cannot apply after ones death? So yes, why can this not apply after death as well. Without the body, he cannot sustain himself because of the tremendous toll that his power still takes on him even in death, since he doesn't relearn all his teachings after he dies. So it is quite possible, and makes sense that the effects of such power usage could destroy him completely, if he doesn't get to a clone in time.[/quote] The physical body and the spirit are two entirely different things, affected by entirely different things. Read Descartes, Plato, Anselm, etc. There's nothing in Star Wars to suggest that the Dark Side drains the spirit (i.e., metaphysical) at all. The Emperor's body is whithered from the Dark Side of the Force, but his [i]body[/i] is not the same thing as his [i]immaterial self[/i]. For an example of this idea, look at Obi-Wan. He takes a lightsaber through the face and looks perfectly fine in ESB--and that isn't due to any "Light Side Force Spirit Superiority," because that entire concept is not present at all in the OT, and sure as hell wasn't present back when Lucas was writing the drafts. The idea never crossed his mind--and if it did, then he didn't include it in his final draft, or any rough drafts, for that matter. The physical state of a body does not affect the spiritual health in Star Wars. [u][b]EDIT[/b][/u]: And then, also, because the physical state of the body doesn't affect the spiritual health, Palpatine's spiritual degeneration in post-RotJ EU makes no sense at all, because according to the films themselves, the strength of the physical realm does not have any impact on the strength of the metaphysical realm. And then, because there's no evidence that would justify this spiritual degeneration, it could be said that Palpatine truly never was in any danger of "wasting away" post-mortem. So then what does that mean? Somewhere along the line, he figured out a way to live indefinitely, post-mortem...and what is that, as we see from Episode III? Order of Whills. You examine the films, Palpatine's spirit is just as immortal as Qui-Gon's. [quote]But he didn't find a way to become one with t he Force, as Obi-Wan and co. do. He just found a way to cheat death. Two different things here. How so? Palpatine didn't become one with the Force. Then how does Anakin have a Force-ghost? By redeeming himself and turning away from the Dark Side and fulfilling the prophecy of the Chose One by bringing balance to the Force with the death of Palpatine.[/quote] Careful here. If the Force Spirit is a [i]reward[/i] for doing good things, being on the Light Side of the Force, then we would see many more Force Spirits in the films--and I'd think many other Light Side Jedi have studied the Order of Whills...and we don't see any of them. Becoming one with the Force being a type of benefit of being Light Side? I don't think so. I think Palpatine definitely found a way to become one with the Force, the exact same thing Qui-Gon discovered. It's an ability available to both sides. Plus, see above [u][b]Edit[/b][/u]. Plus, with the Saga so obsessed with balance, that's not balance. You have one side [i]supposedly[/i] getting something the other side [i]supposedly[/i] isn't getting. That's not balance. Do you know what is balanced? Light and Dark both possessing the same Force Spirit ability, which seems to be the case now. [quote]lol. Who said it was a save?[/quote] Come on, Zeta, lol. Look at the differences between the NT and OT and tell me Lucas didn't pull some stuff out of his *** to "mesh" the films with the erratic storytelling seen in the EU because he realized that there was no way in hell the EU was going to be salvagable unless he made drastic (and ridiculously absurd) changes to the source material. You don't see saves? Look at all three Prequels. lol [quote]He never said they didn't have the power. What about all those lines i n the movies, all of the movies, along the lines of "I sense much fear in you" etc..They can only sense fear then I take it? It is a logical assumption from things that happen in the movies Siren. It isn't an out of the blue assumption of the Jedi's ability.[/QUOTE] You're focusing on a single idea. I'm talking about in general. The EU is more a liability than anything else. They're fun to read, sure, but given what Lucas had to pull in the Prequels just to account for the EU, so the plotlines, ideas, concepts, etc., of the entire Star Wars universe didn't collapse upon themselves? Proves that Lucas works closely with the authors...no, it doesn't. All it proves is that the EU authors are going in too many different directions for the source material to sustain itself. All it proves is that Lucas only works closely with the authors when he needs to write his way out of a corner (and let's face it, a lot of those "corner writings" were crap). lol If the EU weren't so scattered, if it were much more focused, more coherent, we wouldn't have the plot twist trainwreck that is the Prequels, simple as that.

Honestly, I don't think the rhyming is so much of an issue. They work just fine, especially for the purposes of the piece. We're singing about a rubber ducky. I'd expect it to feel like a throwback to Sesame Street. ^_^ My only concern is the overall rhythm of the piece. A few lines break the flow, or at least feel like it, notably [quote]I must accept that you have matured into a swan.[/quote] The line is bulky and clumsy, particularly because of how well the previous lines beat.

[QUOTE=Zeta]Oh, and on a closing note. Siren, it seems that Jedi can "officially" sense deception/etc.. [i]Revenge of the Sith[/i] pg. 249 [spoiler]Your Jedi senses, Anakin. Your ability to [i]read evil intent[/i]. I have no doubt these Senators will put some virtuous facade on their plotting; with your help, we will pierce that veil and discover the truth.[/spoiler] Not EU, but part of the G-canon in your link in an earlier post, the [i]absolute[/i] canon. ^_^;;[/QUOTE] Then an even [i]greater[/i] indictment of the Jedi. They had the ability, and [i]even then[/i] couldn't use it, because they were so wrapped up in themselves and so ignorant of the real world. If they have the ability, then they have no excuse. It's a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" type of thing. As for Episode III "proving" Lucas works closely with the EU authors, it doesn't really "prove" anything. All it does is show just how volatile and scattered the EU really is, especially when Lucas has to write-in (rather, [i]wedge[/i]-in) "saves" like that (and sometimes, the "saves" actually make things worse for everything). Take, for example, the Order of Whills. We learn in Episode III that [spoiler]the Force Spirit ability has to be learned, essentially. Qui-Gon will teach it to Yoda, who then teaches it to Obi-Wan.[/spoiler] But this doesn't help anything, particularly the post-RotJ Force Spirit EU. In fact, it only further [i]damages[/i] the EU. Anakin has a Force Spirit at the end of RotJ, but nowhere in the Prequels was he ever instructed by a Light Side Jedi how to attain one. Qui-Gon discovers the technique post-mortem; Yoda learns it from him; Obi-Wan learns it from Yoda. None of them teach it to Anakin, because by that point, he's gone...fallen to the Dark Side. And yet he still has a Force Spirit in RotJ. Where could he have learned it? Who could have instructed him? Well, who were his masters throughout the Saga? Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, a smattering of Yoda...and Darth Sidious. It's clear by RotJ that Anakin has learned the ability. Otherwise, he wouldn't have a Force Spirit, but he doesn't learn it from a Light Side Jedi. Hell, the only three LS Jedi in the Prequels who eventually possess the ability only learn of it when Anakin is no longer on their side. So, learning it from a Light Side Jedi is entirely impossible. Hence, he must have learned it from Palpatine. Hence, Palpatine has the ability. Hence, it's not a technique exclusive to the Light Side. Hence, the post-RotJ EU that features the Force Spirits is wholly incorrect by not granting Palpatine a Force Spirit, because going by the films, he should...he definitely should.

[quote name='JT Darkfire']Siren: You just don't seem to realize that while abstinence should be the preferred method, there will always be a stupid schmuck who chooses not to abstain and, the result: a child.[/quote] *refers you to the portion about his cousin, and various points throughout his prevoius posts* I don't realize there will always be schmucks? I do, and that's why I'm saying what I'm saying, and why I've been saying what I've been saying. [quote]I have family that made that stupid mistake, and I am still a teenager, so I know about the stupidity of my peers. I have two very close friends who didn't know about possible contraceptives, and because of it one of them is seventeen years old with a two year old daughter, and the other is fifteen with a newborn to take care of. Obviously, the lack of information of alternatives to abstinence was a problem, wasn't it? Kids are going to have sex no matter what you put in the curiculum, and there will always be teen pregnancies. If they are having sex anyway, then at least teach safer methods of having sex.[/quote] Teen gets pregnant because they didn't use protection or contraceptives, because they didn't know about it, fair enough. But I find that "lack of information" angle incredibly hard to believe, not to bust on you or your friends, but when you can simply walk into your neighborhood Rite-Aid. When a simple Google search (even 5 or 6 years ago) would return a whole wealth of information on the subject? While some Abstinence-only classes may not be giving a totally comprehensive experience, it's not as if Abstinence-only classes are the only potential sources, so I don't really view "lack of information" as a sound argument. What Abstinence-only classes may lack, anyone can find on sites such as [url="http://www.sexuality.org"]www.sexuality.org[/url], and that's the most obvious example I can think of. And frankly, who doesn't know what condoms are in this day and age (or where to get them)? Or birth control pills? Seriously. lol [quote]Honestly, the two of you need to grow up. This topic had so much potential to be good, but your little feud has taken up the whole post, and I think I can safely say that I'm not the only one who's sick and tired of your constant insults. A smear campaign just isn't necessary here, folks. Just make your point and move on.[/QUOTE] What potential? lol What constant insults? What smear campaign? I can say with utmost confidence that you're overreacting here, and considerably exaggerating what is being said in this thread. So, while I appreciate the effort, it ultimately falls on deaf ears, because there's no smear campaign coming from my end, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case for CHW, either. If calling an idea stupid, dumb, bad, etc., is a smear campaign to you, then no offense, but you need to get out more. lol [quote=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]:rolleyes: Gee, I wonder where else this has happened..... Chibihorsewoman isn't the one that's making the insults. Siren is. He has this problem with incorporating snide remarks and sarcasm into every single post of his. He's even gone so far as to call me a "Narccistic, self absorbed, fascist, propagandist". He never shows respect to other members if he disagrees with them, which in turn makes the other member want to reply back.[/color][/quote] Chabi, [i]please[/i]. Blow it out your rear end and/or grow a pair, for crying out loud. The only reason you get so offended by what I say is because you're hypersensitive about [i]everything[/i]. Don't deny it, either. You know it just as well as I do. You [b][i]LOVE[/i][/b] playing the victim.