Brasil

Good to have you back again, Charles. [QUOTE=Charles]The survival gameplay isn't lackluster at all. One only needs to look to other games in the genre comparatively to understand just how fine-tuned Metal Gear Solid 3 truly is. I have no doubt that you're familiar with Splinter Cell's frustrating "trial-and-error" gameplay. The scenarios themselves in that game are more stealth oriented, and you're less likely to survive a hail of bullets than you are in Metal Gear Solid 3 (the game is admittedly quite forgiving in regards to sustaining damage even on the harder difficulties) but Splinter Cell's gameplay just isn't as fun. And, that's what I play games for. So, you've taken a very critical stance against variations to a familiar formula that have been introduced. I'd say that you need to be reminded of exactly what kind of game Metal Gear Solid is supposed to be. No one is trying to achieve Tom Clancy levels of depth. No. The Metal Gear Solid series, has roots as a cinematic tour de force. However, despite the complex technology and direction dedicated towards achieving that end in each iteration, the series is geared towards the complete opposite in terms of gameplay. Again, it's a throwback to the roots of video games, when they were fluid, simple, and easy to pick up and play with enjoyment in mind. It's not about being burdened down with complex systems. Now, go play Splinter Cell.[/quote] Slow-paced tension versus arcade-y shooter? Like Rainbow Six 3 versus Halo? I play games for fun, too, but I'm not about to go choose to watch Starship Troopers when I can watch Alien, and likewise, if I've got a game that's more white knuckle, hiding in the shadows, avoiding enemies, with insta-death should I mis-step instead of being able to pretty much open-ended run n gun, I'm going with the insta-death. Being babied (which is how you're describing MGS3, lol) is not exactly my idea of a good game, lol. [quote]Again, it's a throwback to the roots of video games, when they were fluid, simple, and easy to pick up and play with enjoyment in mind.[/quote] Considering the MG franchise itself, the very first NES game being rather user-[i]un[/i]friendly, and bulky, and not all that fluid at all, even by "yesterday's" standards, I don't think that the MG series (or MGS series) was ever really focused on being "fluid, simple, and easy to pick up and play." The menus alone were convoluted as hell in the originals (I don't think anyone cold deny that, lol), and it took some time to use the menus in MGS adequately. Maybe it's just me, but the Metal Gear series has been more complicated than simple, and bulkier than more fluid. I mean, honestly, Charles, do you expect a n00b to be able to pick up MGS1 (and likewise, 2, and 3) and play it like they've been playing it for years? [quote]That's why the camouflage system isn't as meticulous as you'd like it to be. Kojima wanted it to be there--but he didn't want it to get in the way. But, really, to be earnest, the index isn't a huge problem that needs defending. [b]For one thing, it's such an intuitive, common sense system, that one isn't likely to even rely on the reading. One doesn't need to be an experienced player to judge which combination will work most effectively when sneaking--they just need a pair of eyes.[/b] That's not even my strongest point against what you're saying though.[/quote] If it's such common sense anyway, and anyone with a pair of eyes can easily figure it out, why is there the percentage read-out to begin with? It just becomes redundant. [QUOTE]It's not just the camouflage you adorn Snake with that generates excitement--[b]it's how you approach the situation. I find that most of the stealth is centered around the player's patience and their strategy when approaching any given situation[/b].[/QUOTE] Since you brought up Splinter Cell, I'll talk about it, as well. I've bolded where Splinter Cell is no different. [QUOTE]There are almost always multiple ways of navigating around a group of enemies. You can hide in a thicket of grass, crawling slowly on your belly--carefully choosing objects to hide behind all the while. On the other hand, you can isolate an enemy, snipe him, tranq him, or play somewhat more aggressively, shooting out his radio so that he cannot call for back-up. You can even use nearby objects; you can push barrels into enemy units, throw poisonous snakes at them or shoot explosive materials. Yet, at no time will you face a "mission failed-" screen and have to repeat the section for no good reason.[/QUOTE] These are examples of how you can handle enemies, and a variety of the ways are very precise and methodical, almost overly cautious, which is the same type of gameplay you'd find in Splinter Cell, in fact, even moreso in Splinter Cell, because the game really punishes you for miscalculations. I don't see how what you've described is really any different from Splinter Cell, anyway. You're talking about how to approach an enemy, disable him without being detected, or how to use the environment to your advantage. The only difference is location (jungle vs the slums of Jerusalem). [QUOTE]By isolating one facet of the game, you're completely ignoring all the depth that makes it so special. For example, did you know that when you eat spoiled food, you're not forced to use medicine, but may instead spin Snake around in the menu screen causing him to vomit? [b]Now, remind me again why the player isn't allowed to figure out what will work best?[/b] That seems to be an issue in other stealth games in which there's only one method to success, but not here. No two people will play this game exactly the same.[/QUOTE] The Camo percentage doesn't allow the player to figure out what's best, because it's telling them what's best. Regarding spoiled food, there's no "method that works best" there, because the end result is the same, and there's no variation, unless you get purged more if you pop some of the medicine instead of spinning. [QUOTE] What's your point exactly? I've not seen many people tout this feature as "deep." But, most agree that it doesn't get in the way or ruin the game either. It's just an alternative method to healing that works in conjunction with the feeding system to provide a more interesting experience than simply finding intermittent ration items that will automatically restore Snake. It's not supposed to be a challenge, or deep. Just different.[/quote] "Hightlight item" *click* "Apply item" *click* "Highlight different item" *click* "Apply different item" *click* Call me cynical, Charles, but that's just the same ration system with a different presentation and name, lol. If by "different," you mean in the superficial sense, then, yes; it's different. But fundamentally different? I can't see how. [quote]Furthermore, it encourages players not to be reckless because it can be time consuming if you barge into a room, suffer from a multitude of injuries, and go through the process of healing them individually.[/QUOTE] I would hope that one doesn't go recklessly rushing into a group of enemies more because one would get heavily damaged, and one would want to avoid heavy damage, because heavy damage is hazardous to one's health, instead of simply because one doesn't want to take the 35 seconds it would take to rapidly cycle through one's item menu and apply a bandage. Avoiding damange for the sake of avoiding damage is a no-brainer; 35 seconds to apply a bandage or two, or three, shouldn't be a factor at all. If you were concerned with not boring anyone, you'd encourage these kinds of changes. But, then again, you don't seem to be against change per se, but rather, you were looking for Metal Gear Solid 3 to completely revolutionize gaming in some way with its tweaks. [QUOTE][b]I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but I doubt it[/b]. Love them or hate them, these games leave lasting impressions. People, to this day, still have energetic discussions about Metal Gear Solid 2 , for example. Many will agree, despite their opinion of the story, that the actual game is incredible. Metal Gear games are masterpieces, and like all video games that occupy that coveted rank, they last the test of time. Why else would the original Metal Gear Solid have been remade for the GameCube? It wasn't being introduced to a new audience for the same purpose of easing them into the series as we saw with the Resident Evil remake. Metal Gear isn't moving over to GameCube. It's because Metal Gear fans, like Zelda fans or what have you, are dedicated to the product enough to preserve its status throughout the years. [b]Consider that most fans agree that it's the best game in the trilogy[/b], and I'm left pondering the validity of your point despite its hypothetical, and unfounded, nature.[/QUOTE] I was hearing the exact same things back when MGS2 was released. [QUOTE]You could have fooled me.[/QUOTE] I can't see how. I never was suggesting that I want to taste the animal flesh. I never was suggesting that I want to feel the rough bark of the tree as I climb it. I never was suggesting that I want to smell the dirt. [quote]Kojima has always had a vision for Metal Gear, and that vision involved a sneaking mission that began with a drop-off in the jungle. Again, the developers weren't trying to usher in a completely revolutionary level of gameplay. They just wanted to freshen the series by going back to its roots. It's an obvious goal that's been realized both through plot and the environment. They wanted to take the Metal Gear formula, pick it up, and take it somewhere else. That's all. The developers created a convincing jungle environment with the Playstation 2 technology that's impressive to behold; it does more than live up to the series' immersive environments--it surpasses them. Not only visually, but also because it's more interesting to play through and allows more possibilities on the gameplay side of things. I'd say that, in practice, it's more suited to the stealth experience overall.[/quote] My issue is not with the jungle setting. I welcome the jungle setting, lol. It fits more with the tone of the series than the Big Shell ever could. I was just as bored as you were on that hexagonal monstrosity, in the middle of the ocean. My issue also never was with the graphics. My focus has always been on the gameplay, specifically, the cure system and Camo. [quote]The game wasn't reinvented from the ground up to "convert" non-fans of the series; it was intended to please the fans. Keep that in mind before you waste your time replying with points I'll easily counter.[/QUOTE] Charles, you know how much I played (and loved) MGS1. You and I had extended-length discussions about how MGS2 totally dropped the ball when it came to being a game. You and I had conversations examining how horridble the bosses were in MGS2, and how Fortune was the only worthwhile (sympathetic) boss villain. I'm not a "non-fan" of the series. If I were a non-fan of the series, I wouldn't even be posting here, lol...I wouldn't even give two sh-ts about how particular aspects of the series are declining. If I were a non-fan of the series, I wouldn't have collected every single damn dog tag in MGS2. And I'd hardly classify MGS3 has reinventing the game from the ground-up, too.

Just thought I'd post here again to mention a theme change at MyO, and the accompanying Intro image: [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21840&stc=1[/img][/center] I'm really, really pleased with how the entire theme came out, and the Intro image just [i]works[/i]. I'm fairly pleasantly surprised that I was able to figure out what font the Anchorman logo uses (Bolded, capitalized Impact...go figure). All in all, it's my best theme yet, I think, and one of my best Intro images yet. Kermit the Frog (my old theme, heh) just can't stand up to Ron Burgundy. Oh, Shinje, try using the font CHILLER for the Apocalypse Now text. With a bit of skewering and re-sizing, you can get really damn close to the actual look.

If I were to distill my entire religious philosophy to a sentence, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." I'll explain this in this post, but my religion is something I like to call Marxist Pythonianism. Marxist Pythonianism is my own personal...life approach. It's not restricted to any particular...genre of life, necessarily. It pertains to pretty much any facet of life you can think of, and it's pretty damn cool in that regard. To the Marxist Pythonian, life is merely a fun challenge. Any hiccup we encounter isn't a signal of the end of the world; it's merely just something to work on. Really, to an MP, there's nothing that worries us. You might say we've adopted a "No worries" stance, heh. I find that when I don't concern myself with the "Beatles" (i.e., organized religion, God, etc), I'm having a much more groovy time. It's much more of a relief for me to know that I'm doing what I want, and that I'm shaping my own existence. I'm in control of my life, and the confidence in my abilities is more than enough to drive me to be successful and content with my life. Call me an Atheist, call me Existential, if you will, but to me, we only have what we have here, and this is actually one of the precepts for Marxist Pythonianism. MP is all about living life, whatever that life may be. It's all good. Life's a challenge, but you learn to live with it, and change what you can, and if you can't, then oh well, try again later. The name, Marxist Pythonianism, is actually a combination of two comedy troupes, the Marx Brothers and Monty Python. The comedy of MPs reflect those troupes. So...yeah. That's my religion in a nutshell.

[quote name='sata665']The cure menu is still like using items, but its much better than being mysteriously healed by food or just grabbing a glowing first aid kit.[/quote]But fundamentally, what you just described there is no different than using a healthpack in say...Psi-Ops. It's not that I'm saying all types of item cure systems are crap. I just look at what MGS3 was being described as, and seeing how fundamentally, the item/cure system is no different than your run-of-the-mill 3rd-person action/adventure game, and can't help but be a little bit disappointed in how there's really zilch innovation there. Given what they wanted to do, with the gradual Stamina drain and all, and the need to consistently eat, why they didn't just have you strip the animal right there and eat on-the-spot is beyond me. It just makes more sense, what with the whole "surviving in the wilderness/hunting" thing they were talking about, and would actually put more of a pressure on us, because we're [i]constantly[/i] on the prowl for meat, as opposed to opening up our pack and seeing the five snake meats there. The hunter never stops, and Snake stops, lol. [quote name='Zidargh]Unless you are looking for a [i]Thief: Deadly Shadows[/i']-esque pick-lock control system for removing bullets or something along the lines of that,[/quote]That's [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about, and I find Thief: Deadly Shadows to be one of the better examples of how these different gameplay types can be blended together. I view the MG series nowadays as eating itself, honestly. With each new game released, Kojima and his crew have to constantly re-attract gamers, and just from the trend of MGS1-3, the self-destructive tendency is already becoming apparent. I mean, it's like Andy Kaufman in a way. Kaufman had built things up so much, that he constantly had to try to out-do himself to appease his fans. I see that happening with MGS. Whereas Kaufman performed himself into a corner, Kojima and Co are slowly, but surely, developing themselves into a corner.

[quote name='Charles]In the previous post in this thread, which seems ancient now, Siren basically rambled on about the new gameplay features being introduced and how they're not revolutionary. This is true, but they certainly don't get in the way of anything. As a matter of fact, they're positive additions that are there if you want another layer of depth to explore. That's all. The [b]CQC system[/b'], in particular, deserves mention, however, because it's the one new feature I believe improves the gameplay significantly. When I played Twin Snakes, I had a difficult time enjoying it because Snake's combat abilities just felt so aged compared to what Ubisoft was doing with Splinter Cell. Even watching the in-game cut scenes from Twin Snakes annoyed me because I wasn't able to replicate the hand-to-hand combat presented in them. It was just a mindless, button-mashing affair. Snake Eater's CQC gives the player options that greatly expands your available options during enemy encounters. You can interrogate an enemy to sometimes hilarious results, choke him out, break his neck, throw him down, slit his throat, or use him as a human shield. It's a lot more enjoyable than punch, punch, spin kick, or holding them up for dog tags.[/quote]One thing. lol An improved hand-to-hand combat system isn't going to compensate for the lackluster "survival" gameplay. I've already expressed my thoughts on the Camo rating (which, after having some hands-on time with the game, remain identical). I feel that it's still half-baked. It's far from developed enough, and stripped down enough, to excite me at all. By this I mean, the idea of Camo in this game, and blending in to the surroundings is a solid idea, and on paper, it sounds wonderful. We're talking Willard a la Apocalypse Now, rising out of the water, hair slicked back, with black warpaint streaking his face, moving in and out of the shadows, wielding a machete. But what we get is something that only feeds us more computerized read-outs, with no real dependency on the player to figure out what's going to work best? Another new and exciting gameplay feature that so many people are touting as "deep" or "challenging" is this Surgery thing. We're simply using items. That's it. We're not using the joysticks to maneuver a knife and remove the bullet. We're selecting Ointment-->Apply, then Bandage-->Apply. This is deep how? This is a challenge how? This is organic gameplay how? I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone. My assessment of MGS3 is similar to my assessment of MGS2. In a year-and-a-half, once the initial excitement of the game wears off, people's positive opinions of it will change fairly drastically. To clarify, I'm not looking to be able to actually smell the dirt, feel the foliage or anything like that. I'm not about to criticize a game for being unable to recreate the smells and tactile sensations of the jungle, because I'd be setting highly, highly unrealistic expectations. What I am looking for, however, is if a game's developers (like Kojima and his crew) are so strongly emphasizing a level of gameplay previously unrealized, with new and exciting features that will immerse you more than ever before...I don't want some derivative menu/item system whose "survival" aspects are nothing more than superficial window dressing, and really, that's all MGS3's new gameplay options are: just a regular menu/item system wrapped in a fancy "Hey, look at this!" costume.

"TEF griefing will only make this harder...on you."

James, I'm not Anti-CG, necessarily, but CGI is really still in its infancy. Lucas, the LotR team, and the Wachowskis haven't hit the end-all, be-all of CG...far from it. The CG still looks fake, lol. It may look better nowadays, but there comes a point where if an entire movie is done in CG, or at least large portions of it, I know I start wondering why there's such an (over)abundance of CGI in there. I'm fine with a few little inserts here and there (like T3's bathroom stall fight sequence), but honestly, I feel the all-time best creature effects have been done with good ole fashioned elbow grease and puppetry/animatronics/stop-motion. There are a few high points for CG (T2 comes to mind, and snippets of Star Wars, LotR, Matrix), but overall, it hasn't advanced to the stage where entire films can utilize CG and no other types of conventional special effects and have it look good, and it's rare when it happens. I look at something like (and oddly enough, half of these are Stan Winston projects, lol) John Carpenter's The Thing, or Alien/Aliens, Terminator, 2001, Nightmare Before Xmas, King Kong (1933), and there's this...physical tangibleness to the creatures. Rarely do I get that with CG, specifically the level of CG seen in Star Wars, Matrix, etc. There's no weight to the characters. CG looks more out of place in live-action than puppetry does. I'm not against CG, far from it, but I'd much prefer the utilization of CG to be nonobtrusive as opposed to building scenes around it, if I'm explaining that correctly.

[left]Nifty idea, Sara. ^_^[/left] [center][quote][b]"Arctic Slumber"[/b][/center] [left]?We ain?t gonna last long out here, and the temperature isn?t going to hold. It?s gonna start dropping in a little under an hour.?[/left] [left]?Yeah, but we?re not in much condition to do anything about it.? [/left] [left]?Is there anyone left?? [/left] [left]?I don?t know.? [/left] [left]?So, what?s going to happen now?? [/left] [left]?How about?just wait?just wait and see.?[/quote][/left]

I have to return the game today, haha, so I've had an entire week with it. Overall, it's a great game. There's a lot of meat to the story, and the characters and dialogue are really well-written. I'm most impressed so far with Atton's voice-acting. It's impressive. Some have said that Atton is the Carth character for KOTOR II, but that's really inaccurate. Atton is far more a wise-*** than Carth ever was, and he doesn't really whine so much as criticize you, or wonder why he suddenly went nuts in the heat of battle, muahaha. And really, there are no weak characters in KOTOR II, which is especially nice. I always found Mission and Zaalbar to have absolutely no purpose at all, both from a gameplay and a character dynamics standpoint. They were just useless, lol. Their replacement so far seems to be Atton and this Zabrak, Bao-Dur, a veteran of the Jedi Civil War, and who served under the main character. Bao-Dur is really interesting. He seems to suffer from PTSD, with a blank, spaced voice, and what looks like the "Thousand-Yard Stare." Gotta catch the train, so I'll edit this later, haha. [center]***EDIT***[/center] I'm pretty much finished Dantooine for now, and just repelled a Mercenary assault. It was pretty neat. I also finally got my lightsaber...and the new Create/Upgrade system is a blessing, and if you use it correctly, your first lightsaber will be something like the following: [QUOTE]Damage: Energy, 7-40 Damage Bonus: +1 Dark Side Attack Mod: +1 Blaster Bolt Deflection: +1 Charisma: +2 Dexterity: +1 Strenght: +3 Double-bladed[/QUOTE] And I have a very strong feeling that what I did for my lightsaber is really only scratching the surface of what can be done with the new system. As I play more and more, I find that KOTOR II is essentially a complete opposite of the first game. Where the first game's opening level, the Endar Spire, was exciting to play through, KOTOR II's Peragus Mining Facility is bleh, almost boring and tedious. Where KOTOR I had fairly basic character development and abilities, the sequel actually utilizes skills like Intelligence, and the various physical skills of your team. There are times during conversation where your Awareness skill comes into play and you spot a fake Holocron, and thus put the salvager on the spot. I never experienced anything like that in the first game, and that gameplay addition really helps to provide some character dynamic incentive to pumping up a skill or attribute like Intelligence. For me, in the first game, putting points into Intelligence never seemed all that fruitful, except for actual character skill development. In KOTOR II, however, you get more of a sense that every single aspect of your character will have an effect, and it works really well. Considering the new Influence system, I think it's a reasonable assessment. Nearly everything you say or do in the sequel will have an effect on your party, and if you say the wrong thing, you're going to lose Influence. Kreia is turning away from me more and more, heh. I think that once you get past the various technical snags, and a few bits of blerghy pacing, the game will grab you, even moreso than the first. The characters are far better, even at 17 hours into the game, the dialogue is more engaging, the action pieces are more exciting, and generally, it feels like a much more "whole" game. I'd say ANH/KOTOR I and ESB/KOTOR II parallel is an accurate one. Where KOTOR I laid the groundwork, KOTOR II is building an Empire. :p [center]***EDIT #2 AT 3:30 AM***[/center] [left] [/left] [left]KotOR II is sex. Pure, unadulterated, steamy, hot, passionate sex. I'm running around with the double-bladed saber...and it's [i]Orange[/i].[/left]

[QUOTE=Adahn]You're saying that bestiality is wrong because of an animal's inability to consent to sex, correct? Then what is hunting, or the mass slaughter of animals in factories? If bestiality is rape, then hunting is murder. You are putting animals on the same level as humans. Don't deny it. Deliberate ignorance? It's just that your argument can be used to argue against pet ownership as slavery and hunting as murder. I would suggest you choose a different path of logic to explain to me how bestiality is wrong.[/quote] Pet ownership (i.e., taking care of one's pet) versus abusing an animal for sexual pleasure. Come on, Adahn. You're trying to spin this and it's not working, because there's no way in hell you're ever going to be able to draw some type of correlative link between those two. You're trying to argue the slippery slope angle, and it's not working, because as you go farther and farther down the [i]imagined[/i] slippery slope, your "argument" is becoming more and more asinine and removed from reality. I'm going to say this again. I'm putting animals [i]beneath[/i] humans. I never treated them as being on the same level, because they're not. But regardless of the different levels, taking sexual advantage of a lower being that lacks the capacity to communicate--[i]regardless of what specie, class, level[/i]--is wrong. [QUOTE]All this says is, 'your idea is disgusting and wrong!' There's no intelligent argument here.[/QUOTE] Funny, that's precisely what you were saying about homosexuality. So, then, you also have no intelligent argument? [QUOTE]Well, there's also the complete lack of desire to do anything about it. What do you think this country is, a democracy? I have a vote, but I have no voice.[/QUOTE] Your apathy is your own fault. You have a voice; everyone does. The people driving our country are drunk at the wheel, Adahn. We need to take the keys from them. [quote]What I think is right (my morality) and what I can understand (my wisdom) are different. It's perfectly ok for me to understand why something could be thought of as right because of my wisdom, and still disagree with it because of my morality. Not everything is black and white.[/QUOTE] Okay, and wisdom should prevail all the time, then, so you should never have even had those morality-based thoughts to begin with, because wisdom (i.e., logic, intelligence, reason, rationality) overrules emotion. I find that last night's South Park is useful here. The episode centered around a Woodland Critter Christmas, with the whole immaculate conception thing. As the episode proceeds, we learn that a mountain lion is hunting these critters, year after year killing their lord and savior. They get Stan to go kill it. He comes back, and they reveal themselves to be demonic woodland critters, and the "lord and savior" is actually the antichrist. Here comes the end of the world, basically, and the animals sing with malicious glee. One of the bunnies is happily sacrificed, then the other critters go, "Blood orgy!" and start making love to one another, using the bunny's blood as lubricant. The slippery slope argument is a lot like that. It basically boils down to because of homosexuality, gay rights, etc., the world is going to degenerate into a blood orgy. The complete and utter void of logic in the slippery slope argument should be obscenely apparent to anyone there.

[quote name='Adahn']You're putting them on the same level as humans.[/quote] Adahn, how am I putting animals on the same level as humans? Fact of the matter is, I'm [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b]. Nowhere in my post was I placing animals at the same level as humans. In fact, I was placing them beneath humans, and that's very clear to see in my post. I'm just as much as an animal rights activist as the next guy, but even I know that the family dog isn't going to be able to help me put up the Xmas tree, or to bounce thesis ideas back and forth with him. [quote]I suppose we should all take everyone's pets away, because it's very obvious that the relationship is master/slave. We even breed them and sell their children! Do you see what I'm getting at? If you want to show me how bestiality is wrong, tell me how it hurts someone, or how it's anyone's business but the person's and the animal's. That's the argument for homosexuality, isn't it? It doesn't hurt anyone, it's nobody's business, and people are going to do it anyway. You can sit there all day and call it 'rape' because of a lack of 'consent', but I'm asking you why it's wrong. Remember, by today's definition, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not wrong.[/quote] You honestly and truly believe that homosexuality is akin to beastiality? And I'm the twisted one? How about that it's taking advantage of a lesser being, one that can't fight back, can't speak out, can't even tell you what it's thinking. Beastiality isn't homosexuality. Beastiality is rape of an invalid. Do I still need to tell you how it's wrong, Adahn? I've said it about five times now and you keep asking why. Any further question on your part is a result of deliberate ignorance. [QUOTE]I cannot affect the President's actions, so I will not concern myself with them. Have you ever read the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People? The President is well out of my sphere of influence, so concerning myself with it is a waste of time.[/QUOTE] You would be surprised what you can do when you put your mind to it (which, I recall, is said in that book). [quote]They're hardly relating to the same topic. One is my personal opinion, and the other is my understanding as a compassionate human being. I can understand how it could be seen as right, and even agree with it on some level based upon my understanding, even though it conflicts with my personal feelings.[/QUOTE] They very much relate to the same topic. You said you find the act to be vile and disgusting, but then say that if two people love each other very much, and make love, you're happy about it, and happy for them, and consider them married. Which is it? Do you find it vile, disgusting, wholly disturbing and without any moral value whatsoever, or do you appreciate the love something like that can stand for?

[quote name='Adahn']I'm sorry, when I start sentences with 'I view', what usually follows is an opinion of mine.[/quote] Yes, and you haven't been studying Literature for the past four years. [QUOTE]Tell me, then, why bestiality is wrong.[/QUOTE] I don't see why I'd even have to explain this...if animals cannot communicate what they are feeling, and thus, communicate consent, how can anyone view beastiality on any comparable level with activity between two cognitively-developed humans, who [i]are[/i] able to communicate consent? Beastiality is wrong because a party involved has absolutely no way of fully communicating and/or fully expressing cognitive processes. Animals lack the ability to. It's essentially inter-specie rape. [QUOTE]I don't really care what Bush believes, I didn't vote for him. He's got free reign of the country for another four years, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't concern myself with matters that don't concern me.[/QUOTE] But it does concern you, because you are living in the United States of America, the same country that dear ole Bushy is President of. You're more willing to be apathetic to the entire process than to make your voice heard? Bush doesn't really display any lean towards moral relativism, by the way. [quote][b]There is no problem with it[/b]. I voted for it. We aren't debating homosexual marriage, here, we are debating the morality of homosexuality.[/QUOTE] [quote]This: [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery. Do you want me to provide some sort of evidence for why I feel this way? I can't, all I can say is that it is a part of my nature.[/color][/size][/font] Compared to the following: [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yep. If two people who are in love make love, then I would consider them 'married' in a spiritual sense, despite the lack of a political or religious recognition. Marriage is a ceremony. The act of love is what God recognizes as binding two souls together. Anything else is fornication.[/color][/size][/font][/quote] Quote above, you were describing how you thought it was vile and disgusting, and in the second quote, you're fine with it--in fact, you seem to be glad about it. Now, call me crazy, but given that first quote there, it seems that you're completely unable to "have no problem" with homosexual marriage, lol. Regarding the morality of homosexuality, the two quotes above seem to contradict each other pretty badly.

Jordan, you wanted me...to pleasure you...deeply, so here goes. XD [quote name='Drix D'Zanth]Not only that, if you knew the first thing about our consitution, one of the only ways it can be changed.. [b]IS BY THE VOTING POPULATION[/b'].[/quote]Psst, hey Jordan, for a fun little activity, check out the Election results. Compare the Sanctity of Marriage poll results against the Presidential electoral results. I don't think it's coincidence that most states deciding on that SoM Act turned out Red. ~_^ Okay, I hate to pick on you, but there are a few issues that need to be put to rest. [QUOTE]Hang on? bold text. Read that again? ?born gay?. Really? Please, please explain just how anyone is ?born? gay. Are you telling me it?s hereditary? Care to back that up with a little science? Let?s talk genetics then? please answer me this fundamental question: Why in the world would our genetic material? the very information that is ONLY maintained by being ?passed? from generation to generation somehow mutate to create a gene that worked counterproductively to its own survival??? Homosexuality is not genetic, it is psychological.[/QUOTE]I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology. [QUOTE]Once again, where do you draw these conclusions? And ?openmindedness? is a wonderful world brought up in this thread very often? who the hell thought of it? Think about it for a second without suffering an aneurism. ?Open-mindedness? basically means accepting whoever?s viewpoint is told to you without giving any regard to the other, not merely discriminating between the two, but eating right off the plate of any ?gay rights? advocate. That?s openmindedness? I?m just as ?openminded? as anyone here, that doesn?t mean I have to agree![/QUOTE]Jordan, remember, I'm no mindless drone. I make sure to ask why when someone tells me something. I don't just naively accept anything and everything, and here I am, standing as an advocate for gay rights. I'm not a pushover (you definitely know that, haha), and here I am, supporting a cause, the supporters of which you've just labeled as...blank, essentially. [QUOTE]Guys, Adahn does have a point here. You can support acts such as necrophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality on the same grounds you support homosexuality! By repeating ?No no, that?s a totally different issue? as your only rebuttal isn?t proving anything.[/quote]It sounds like you're against homosexuality here, and I had already gone into [i]why[/i] it's an entirely different issue back a few posts ago. [quote]Not only that, why can?t a son and father get a civil union? Why can?t they have shared health insurance? Why can?t my college roommate and I get a civil union for our stay at college and reap a few benefits off of that one? You?re going to tell us that we can?t because we aren?t in ?love?? Since when did the government ever demand a marriage be recognized between two people that ?love? eachother?[/QUOTE]I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me? [quote]Homosexual marriage is just another step down the slippery slope of "everything's okay, doesn't matter what you do." And as far as I'm concerned: if you leave it out of the Government (aka me, Adahn, everyone else) I DONT CARE what you ****![/QUOTE]Slippery slope, eh? The same was said back during the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Lib, the American Revolution...virtually every single societal progressive movement in history, and society is better for them. [QUOTE=Adahn]I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying that the strength of sin was the law, and you told me that that line was referring to Roman law. It was all about interpreting the Bible in terms of the time period it was written in. I'm a big fan of sarcasm in RL, but I'm almost never sarcastic here. This is what I was talking about, it was a good point. Sorry, no sarcasm here, either. Maybe next time. I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you in presenting the possibility that homosexuality in the Bible was written in the context of the active/passive relationship that characterized male homosexuality in that time period.[/quote]Okay, whatever. [QUOTE]I won't argue against your personal opinion, you're entitled to it.[/QUOTE]Not opinion. When people are able to distance themselves from the emotional attachment they have to the Bible, they'll see that it is no different at all from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Iliad, etc. Bible as Literature. Pure fact. The Bible is a piece of Literature rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, Economics, etc. [QUOTE]Is it going to cause any physical/emotional harm to the animal? From what I can tell, that's the direction the morals of the country are heading in. If there are no real harmful consequences to an action, then the action is not wrong.[/QUOTE]If you ask a human how they're feeling, they can reply because they [i]have[/i] the capacity to understand the question. If you ask an animal the same thing, they're going to sit there and just stare at you blankly, because they [i]lack[/i] the capacity to even [i]realize[/i] you're asking a question. Until animals are able to fully communicate their emotions and feelings, attempting to compare homosexuality and beastiality is absurd. [QUOTE]Are you trying to tell me that right and wrong are relative?[/QUOTE]Do you think Bush believes right and wrong are relative? (you want to play Socratic Method, fine) [quote]Yep. If two people who are in love make love, then I would consider them 'married' in a spiritual sense, despite the lack of a political or religious recognition. Marriage is a ceremony. The act of love is what God recognizes as binding two souls together. Anything else is fornication.[/QUOTE]Then what's the problem with the government recognizing it in a legal state of marriage?

[quote name='Adahn']Umm, Leviticus wasn't written any time near when Jesus lived. You should have a chat with Siren. He can tell you all about how certain things written in the Bible must be read with regard to the time period they were written in. Also, there are churches that perform homosexual marriages, and accept homosexual couples.[/quote] Your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid. In that AIM convo you and I had, I was explicitly referring to [i]your[/i] blatant misinterpretation of scripture in your Reincarnation debacle, Adahn, and was showing you precisely how you were mis-reading it. Dave knows this, because he knew exactly what I was telling you, and had also been saying it the entire time. I say again, your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid. I view the Bible as a piece of Literature that is heavily, heavily rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, and Economics, and fundamentally, it's no different than any other piece of Lit, except people have elevated it to unreasonably high levels and believe it to be suitable material from which one can quote in support of supposedly "reasonable" social dogma (i.e., your Reincarnation debacle, religious-based arguments against homosexuality, etc). All I was telling you back there on AIM was to read things [i]in context[/i], both textually and historically, that's it. Now, I'd like for you to address the other points of mine that you omitted: [quote=Siren]But what if the act of anal sex, whether homo or hetero, is out of love, compassion, caring, and [i]isn't[/i] an act of lust? How would you respond to that? Would it still be wrong, even when it's out of love? And how does the animal feel? What does the animal think? Is it consenting to this? Come on, lol. Remember the quote. I've bolded an interesting idea there. "Belief is not truth." Hmm...what have people been saying to you in this entire thread? That Christianity doesn't apply to everyone, and that Christian doctrine is not truth...interesting. So, if two people who truly love each other make love, then they're married? I think you just made millions of homosexuals very happy, Adahn. You may argue that they didn't really make love...but somehow, I don't think your assessment is all that substantial. If they connected on both an emotional and a physical level...I'd say that's certainly making love, as opposed to screwing like there's no tomorrow.[/quote]

[quote name='Adahn']No, the Bible is rather old, and cannot be applied to every situation that exists today. It has homosexuality covered, though.[/quote] Right to bear arms. It's outdated by some 250 years now. They were talking muskets, not assault weapons. It's similar to the Bible, only the Bible is outdated by some 2500 years, give or take. [QUOTE]I do not disapprove of the relationship. I disapprove of the male-male homosexual act involving sodomy. It disgusts me, about as much as incest/murder/bestiality/adultery disgust me. Do you want me to say that heterosexual anal sex is okay? I see it as an act of lust, and not love. I, personally, consider acts of lust as a kind of fornication.[/QUOTE] But what if the act of anal sex, whether homo or hetero, is out of love, compassion, caring, and [i]isn't[/i] an act of lust? How would you respond to that? Would it still be wrong, even when it's out of love? [QUOTE]Well, there are some common arguments I see used in favor of homosexuality that apply to bestiality. 1. It does no harm to anyone. 2. It's a personal matter, and not anyone else's business.[/QUOTE] And how does the animal feel? What does the animal think? Is it consenting to this? Come on, lol. Remember the quote. [QUOTE]Have you ever seen Gone With the Wind? Scarlett believed herself to be in love with what'shisface, but she never was. She did everything she could to try and get him, until she realized that she was never really in love with him. My statement is valid, and is not absurd. [b]Belief is not truth[/b], Siren.[/QUOTE] I've bolded an interesting idea there. "Belief is not truth." Hmm...what have people been saying to you in this entire thread? That Christianity doesn't apply to everyone, and that Christian doctrine is not truth...interesting. So, if two people who truly love each other make love, then they're married? I think you just made millions of homosexuals very happy, Adahn. You may argue that they didn't really make love...but somehow, I don't think your assessment is all that substantial. If they connected on both an emotional and a physical level...I'd say that's certainly making love, as opposed to screwing like there's no tomorrow. [quote]EDIT: Perhaps in the context of the Bible, male homosexual relationships were strictly active/passive, and therefore could not involve love. If this were true, then male-male sexual relationships based on love would not be wrong. I believe you yourself said something in an AIM conversation about 'law' in the new testament referring specifically to 'Roman law'. If this is the case with Leviticus, where one must understand the time period relating to the statement, then it is possible that homosexuality is not wrong, according to the Bible.[/QUOTE] So, then, you're entertaining the possibility that the Bible isn't really saying what you've been saying it's been saying?

[quote name='Adahn']I said people could not argue against female homosexuality using what is written in the Bible.[/quote]I know what you said, but you didn't answer my question. If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, in effect saying it's okay, is it right? [QUOTE]Yes. While I don't approve of male homosexual relationships, cheating in that relationship is just as wrong as cheating in a heterosexual relationship. I recognize the bond that those couples share, I just don't approve of it.[/QUOTE]So, then, a healthy male-male relationship that may or may not involve intercourse is perfectly okay, because if there's no cheating involved, then the relationship is secure and good. Since you view adultery as equally damaging to both types of relationships, and therefore view both relationships the same way there, why not approve of both types of relationships when the relationship is a healthy and loving one? [QUOTE]Still, sodomy describes any form of anal penetration. I would just assume that any word associated with that city would be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]The city was destroyed because of homosexuality, not hetero anal. Your argument has no validity. [QUOTE]One could make the same arguments for bestiality that people make for homosexuality (ignoring love).[/QUOTE]Firstly, homosexuality does not equal beastiality, and to try to compare the two is absurd for a few reasons. One, humans have something called reasoning. Two, humans have higher levels of cognition. Three, humans may become aroused, but they do not go into heat. Four, (most) humans have self-control. (Most) animals do not. [quote]Sex without love is fornication. Teenagers fornicate. Fornication forms no bond between two people.[/QUOTE]The teenagers believe themselves to be in love, though, and their engaging in sex comes out of that belief. They honestly feel like they're in true love, so, therefore, it's not fornication, therefore, invalidating your above statement, or making it so that half of the teenage population of the US is already married, which reveals the absurdity of your argument. And since you say that sex without love isn't "honorable," that would suggest you believe that sex out of love is "honorable," so then why isn't a homosexual sexual relationship based on love honorable?

Mmmm...James beat me with his (Admin)Rod. Mmm Mmm good. Very fun chapter, Alan, haha, very fun...yes...though, I do have one tiny complaint. Why am I being portrayed as so damn evil?!? ~_^

I was hoping to steer clear of this thread, but...some of what is being said is absurd gibberish. [quote name='Adahn']I'm sure He doesn't look fondly on them, but nowhere in the Bible does He say that female-female relationships are a mortal sin.[/quote]So, then, you're perfectly fine with Rosie O'Donnell coming out, kissing her wife in public, etc? If you're basing your assessment of homosexuality on the Bible, and you're saying that female-female relationships aren't considered mortal sins, and aren't explicitly or implicitly forbidden in the Bible, then...if two women who love each other very much embrace...you wouldn't have a problem with it. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong, so therefore, you can't have a problem with it, because if you did, you would be going against God and His teachings. [QUOTE]You would have a very difficult time finding someone of my faith. Fooling around with someone else is definitely wrong, but it does not constitute adultery. Certain acts are not at all good, but they are forgiveable. But, once your wife/husband has sex with someone else, a very distinct line has been crossed, and no amount of forgiveness can restore that relationship to what it was before.[/QUOTE]And do you hold every relationship to this, no matter what type of relationship (hetero or homo)? [QUOTE]I think it is unnatural. I believe the word to describe it is 'sodomy'. From what I can garner, any word named after a city destroyed for its immorality is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]But it's between a man and a woman, so it's heterosexual, so it has to be okay, because it's not same-sex relations. Or are you disagreeing with the Bible here? By the way, Sodom was burned because of homosexuality, Adahn, not hetero anal. [QUOTE]Incest and murder are naturally wrong. There is no intellectual basis for prohibiting bestiality. It actually seems odd to me that we live in a country where animal torture...I mean testing...is legal, while bestiality, which has the potential to do no harm, is strictly prohibited.[/QUOTE]...are you arguing for beastiality? And also, nowhere did Dagger mention beastiality. She specifically said "incest or murder." And what is your point here? How does what you said have any bearing at all on the topic at hand? [QUOTE]As for adultery, I have a different definition of marriage. I will consider myself married when I make love with a woman who loves me, and who I love. Once that bond is formed, no religious or political ceremony is going to strengthen it, because they are just that; ceremony.[/QUOTE]This is what your view translates into: [quote]Teenage girl is in "puppy love," but she thinks it's true love. Boyfriend of teenage girl is in "puppy love," but he thinks it's true love. They both puppy love each other, and make puppy love.[/quote]You do realize that you just presided over the ceremony for about...oh...50% of the teenage population of the United States? [quote]If you'll notice, I didn't mention incest or murder in any of my previous posts, so please, don't put words into my mouth.[/QUOTE]Yes, you've got enough absurdity coming out of there already. Remember: [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]"I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society."[/color][/size][/font]

Ew. Just...ew. King Kong (1933) is my favorite movie of all-time, and...CG? Um, excuse me? If one were serious about crafting a quality King Kong remake, a remake that matches the original's excellence, one would find it useful to research the merits of stop-motion animation. CG...bah. It's good for little things and brief inserts, but too much of it and the movie flunks. You don't need CG to do a King Kong movie; you just need stop-motion animation and various non-digital imaging techniques.

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21782&stc=1[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21783&stc=1[/img][/center] [left]I think those two just about sum it up. ^_^[/left]

[quote name='Shinmaru']Yeah, Pilate's and Biggus Dickus' lisps are so ridiculous that they're really hilarious. I wonder if they just just decided to give them lisps for the hell of it, or if there was some real reason behind that? lol[/quote] I'd say it's a bit of both. The movie is trying to portray most of those people as totally incompetent and/or hopelessly, tragically, moronically dense, what with the Gourd vs Shoe sequence, the Verb Conjugation, the Hermit, the PFJ and the JPF, "blessed are the cheesemakers," the cross-dressing stoners (lol)...so I think a case can be made that the reasoning behind the lisps was to further enhance the ineptitude. But one can't deny that those wacky Pythonians were...well, wacky, so I'm sure "just for the hell of it" had something to do with it, too. So, yeah. I'd say a bit of both. I'm particularly fond of the "I want to be one...I want to have babies" bit. Just priceless. "Don't you be repressing me, Reg."

The title of this thread is fairly self-explanatory, but who cares, I'll elaborate a bit. Comedy Central is running their Best of 2004 marathon this weekend--rather, was, as it's roughly 2:40 pm on Sunday afternoon. But, it gave me a chance to actually think about how much Comedy Central has these days. I think it's safe to say that their entire line-up (hell, and the station itself) owes itself to South Park. I think that without South Park, Comedy Central would have flopped most heinously. With South Park's success, however, I feel that Comedy Central's programming is something of an anomaly. There's The Daily Show, Drawn Together, The Graham Norton Effect (which is a total riot, I highly recommend it), Crossballs, Primetime Glick, Reno 911, That's My Bush!...the list goes on and on. I swear, Comedy Central has struck line-up gold. What do you all think? What are some of your favorite shows on there? What do you think of Comedy Central?

[QUOTE=DeathBug]I think I understand the point; your view of communism is a hypothetical situation that's never existed, despite attempts all over the world. My view is based on what actually happened when these ideas were implemented. And I'm naive? You want to talk about Christianity? You know why you can draw a line between "real Christianity" and misapplications in its name? Because "real Christianity" exists outside of the abuses of its ideals. You can point to it. States in the US whoe population identify themselves as majorly Christian, for example, give a proportinatly larger amount of their income to charities than those who don't. There's a single example of real Christian ideas being practiced. Where is an example of "true communism" accomplishing great things? Point it out to me. Wait, you can't. Because Communism has a 100% failing record. You place faith in a theory that's never accomplished anything, and I'm the one who's naive? Yes, well, Marx is dead, and his movement continued without him. It continued in a horrible and perverted way, I'll be the first to admit, but you can't keep using that as your escape from a rational argument. Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own. Honestly, I don't care what you want to call it. I'll compromise and call it "Marx's communism" to avoid being judgemental, but the end result is, it's never existed, and is therefore irrelevent. When a successful application of Marx's communism has been created and sustains itself, then I'll revise my opinion accordingly. Until then, Marx's communism is a fairy tale. I'm failing to follow your logic here. Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion of one of the most important issues of the past century; you're telling me you don't? What kind of plastic bubble of isolation must I be kept in to avoid bias that apparently voids my opinion? And if I'm biased against communism, why isn't Siren biased towards it? And, you're right; as long as Marxists cling to social fairy tales and refuse to acknowledge what really happened to their movement, ([b]it became the tool of thugs and dictators[/b]), then arguments will continue to be pointless.[/quote]Everything you've said here is trite and meaningless, DB, and here's why. Read and comprehend what I'm saying here, all right? You're condemning an Ideal based on a misapplication of the Ideal. Marx would [i]freak out[/i] if he saw what vandals and sociopaths did to his idea. Hell, even Dmitry, who lived in the USSR, was adamant about how Marx's Communism was twisted around, and how what we see there isn't anywhere close to what Marx was saying, and therefore does not reflect any aspect of Marx's Communism, making any assessment of Marx's Communism based on the misapplication brought about by sociopaths and dictators entirely null and void, because any assessment seeking to condemn Marx's Communism is based on a twisting of Marx's Communism, and not Marx's Communism itself. You want to talk reality, DB? How about the reality that you're [i]not[/i] basing your argument on reality, just like in NCLB. I'm going to re-iterate: You're trying to condemn Marx's Communism based on the misapplication of it by thugs and dictators. Marx would go absolutely insane if he were to see how his idea was getting twisted around. What you're trying to base your argument on is something that [i]Marx himself[/i] would hate. [quote]The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one; [b]Marxists refuse to do that[/b], then wonder why people don't take them seriously.[/QUOTE]I'm a [i]Marxist Pythonian[/i]. It seems to me that Marxists aren't the issue here, anyway. Seems to me that the real issue is people not wanting to hear how Marx's Communism isn't as bad as those people want to believe it is. [quote name='DeathBug']Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own.[/quote] Oh, ideas are certainly bound to their originators. Say I were Immanuel Kant's teacher, and I happen to express how people ought to tell the truth whenever possible. After a few years, Kant goes out into the world and starts saying how people should tell the truth all the time, no matter what the situation may be. Should people ascribe Kant's misapplication of my idea to me, and then say, "Oh, look, because his idea became this, means his idea was always this"? Or what about Dubya's War on Terror and Jerry Falwell? Just because Falwell is on MSNBC, talking about how we need to destroy these terrorist scum "in the name of God," obviously supporting Bush but saying something that Bush, to my recollection, has never, ever said, should people be criticizing Bush for something a nutcase like Jerry Falwell said or did? Does Solipsism invalidate Plato's Cave, or transform it into something it never was in the first place? Come on, lol.

[quote name='DeathBug']Hey, if Marx's initial idea of communism is "true communism", can we call the communism that's killed millions of people "Real communism", since it's the only one that's actually existed?[/quote] DeathBug, you're missing the point entirely. Others have already mentioned how communism never killed anyone. To blame an Ideal for chaos is like blaming Christianity for the Crusades, and we all know you're not that dense, lol. Now, Marx's initial idea of communism is both "true communism" and "real communism." There's no difference between the two terms there. They're one in the same. The communism that you're talking about is [i]not[/i] "real communism." It's "[i]fake[/i] communism," because it's a twisting and mockery of what Marx was saying, and a [i]false and misleading[/i] application of Marx's ideas.

[quote name='ThatOneOddDude]Finding Nemo for the [b]GBA SUCKS[/b'].[/quote] Haha, forget about the GBA version...try suffering through the console versions, specifically, Cube version. I timed one of the cut-scene load times at 3 minutes...[i]cut scene load time[/i], mind you...not [i]level[/i] load time (that was even longer). Not to mention that each level, and each cut scene, weren't even 10 minutes long a piece. Finding Nemo for Gamecube...by far, the crappiest game I have ever played.