Brasil

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well I think EA would do well to concentrate on, more than anything, multiplayer this time around. If a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good multiplayer.[/quote] I can't agree with this at all. Here's why. Gamers are not only going to be comparing Rogue Agent's multiplayer to GoldenEye. They're going to be looking at the entire package. While GE's multi set the standard (the fundamentals of which PD did not improve upon, but merely just added bells and whistles), GE did not only set the standard for multi. GE set the standard for the entire FPS. You don't hear gamers trashing Nightfire simply because the Multi was substandard. You hear gamers criticizing Nightfire because it was a substandard game entirely, in terms of both Campaign [i]and[/i] Multi. I hardly think it would be wise of EA to concentrate solely on Multi for Rogue Agent. If they focused their efforts primarily on building Multi, we might be given a Turok: Rage Wars, which, let's face it, was not a game. See, if a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good Campaign and good multiplayer, because that's what GE is: stellar Campaign and stellar Multi. EA absolutely [i]cannot[/i] just build a stellar Multi and throw in a Campaign mode as an afterthought. That will not fly with gamers, especially the GE vets. Regarding the new screens, even at this stage in development, some of the textures are looking very nice, the OddJob one, in particular. I can actually see the hairs in his moustache, lol. Obviously, the rendering is still a bit off, and there are some iffy parts of the texturings (I'm looking at the hands here), but the game looks to be coming along nicely. The wall in the back is nice.

I'd like to post here for a quick second and let everyone know that I'm very impressed with the sign-ups so far, especially Cassandra and Anne. I regret others not signing-up for this, though; I would have loved for at least 10 sign-ups. I'm going to hold-off on starting up the RPG, in the hopes that others will want to apply. Again, the tone in these entries is exactly what I'm looking for, and if not exactly, then very, very close. Anyone who does want to enter this RPG, please pay special attention to what has been done already, as they are very useful guides. [b][u]IMPORTANT NOTE:[/u][/b] I have decided to change the posts per day from three to [b]two[/b]. This will further reduce the possibility for clutter, and make for an easier organization of postings. Each character's first post of the school day will be for the morning classes (Periods 1-4), a break for Lunch, during which time I will make an announcement over the PA, and then the second group of posts will be for the afternoon classes (Periods 6-8).

I reply for two reasons. One, this is a fantastic story. DW, this is very strong writing, and the tone is spot-on for the material. It's a great concept. It's been done before, and using it runs the risk of the story sounding tired, but you skillfully avoid falling into the conventional tone of a piece like this, and make it sound very fresh. I'm interested already from just reading the backstory. The idea of technology being destroyed and the people being forced back into the Middle Ages is great, because it allows for social commentary on our dependence on technology, and what we become without it. I found traces of Epic of Gilgamest in there, especially with the forest section. The fear of the unknown, desire to survive in the face of a dominating nature/outside force. Two, this should be read. As you've mentioned to me, people view you as a comedic writer and that's it, and really, your strength lies with this type of work. Kudos, DW.

Am I the only one here who finds this just a bit unreadable? I mean, DW (haha, Darkwing Duck! DW? Nevermind), I appreciate what you want to do with this, but it's just so chaotic and so random. I don't feel any cohesion at all. Maybe it's just me, but I can't find humor in this at all. I just see...random, nonsensical humor with very heavy, liberal dashes of...almost misdirection. I get the sense that there really is no point to this piece, other than to just plop down whatever comes to mind. If that's what you intended, great, but even then, sometimes intent doesn't work. I don't mean to sound harsh, of course, cause I think you're a really cool cat, but there is only so much that can be done with this type of story, and I think you're starting to exhaust that possibility. EDIT: The picture isn't disturbing necessarily. I find it quite amusing. ^_^

Like DeathBug's experience with Shrek 1, it was a very pleasant surprise for me. It was extremely well-conceived, and after watching Shrek 1 again yesterday, I enjoy it even more. It's really an animated feature for adults. Some of the jokes in there are just risque, some of the humor is just bizarre, and quite honestly, it's a gem of a movie. I'm looking forward to Shrek 2. I'll probably go see it with my girlfriend. I was checking out previews for it, and apparently [spoiler]some dragon/donkey love happened.[/spoiler] That'll be interesting to see--the results of that union, I mean.

This game has quite a name to live up to. The original is probably one of my favorite RPGs. I easily logged some 20 hours in it, and still haven't come close to the halfway point. I think my favorite part of this preview is, "We got a peek at the new turret minigame, which puts you in control of an automatic weapon situated on the belly of the Ebon Hawk as Sith troops attempt to get onboard." The throwback to A New Hope (the hangar in Mos Eisley) is undeniable here, and that's one of the best things about the KOTOR franchise. It takes place in the Star Wars universe and never pulls us out. These throwbacks serve a terrific immersive effect, and I'm really looking forward to KOTOR II even now, with just a bit of a preview.

I had posted this in the MyO2 Wishlist thread, but that's the wrong thread for probs, isn't it? lol. I was wondering if users could be given the ability to delete comments from their MyOs? It's annoying when "n0--0bpal2234" posts a comment that is totally unrelated to anything in the update, and I'm unable to delete it. Thanks, Adam.

I'm actually getting more and more interested as time goes on, for the "reckless brutality" idea, anyway. I'm envisioning Fort Knox, as I run in alongside James Bond, who suspiciously looks like Sean Connery, heh, and I just start blowing enemy soldiers away. Anarchy, I tell you, anarchy. :evil grin: One of the more interesting points the Dev made was how the Bond villains share a very similar lifestyle to Bond himself. It had actually never crossed my mind that both hero and villain live in a life of luxury, with beautiful women, cars, wealth...it's interesting. It's almost as if Bond and the supervillain are two different sides to the same...person. Er, not to say schizophrenia, lol, but it's a neat duality. I'm not sure if they were solely concentrating in Campaign and are adding in Multi as an afterthought, though. It sounds like they're really working hard to make this worthwhile in all facets of gameplay. And based on what we've seen in EoN, they now have a nice idea of how to make a Bond game. I don't want another Nightfire, of course, but G:RA is sounding cool and promising. Time will tell, but I'm warming up to the game the more I read about it. EDIT: Thanks for the screens, Tony. The game is still fairly new in development, isn't it? I remember only hearing rumors last year, and these new details were just released within the month.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Alex[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Oscar Wilde and the English Decadence[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Dr. Lutz[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Final Paper[/size][/font] [center][font=Times New Roman][size=3]?Wilde Ideologies reborn in Twisted Animalistic Pop Culture?[/size][/font][/center] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Their messages are identical. The desire to rebel, the disgust for morality, and the disrespect for authority figures are all qualities of three key figures in the history of societal revolution. While John ?Bluto? Blutarsky of ?Animal House? and Dee Snider of Twisted Sister may have never been aware of Oscar Wilde, they both incorporate Wilde?s beliefs of freedom of expression, his desire to rebel against an oppressive moralistic authority, and his dedication to acting for himself.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Wilde reveled in Dandyism. He embraced the idea of dressing provocatively to achieve fame. For Wilde, the more bizarre the clothing, the better. He sought to violate the Victorian dress code by whatever means necessary. Of course, considering that the Victorian dress code was strictly gray or black clothing and required that a person be modestly dressed, it seems that the slightest variation would prove threatening to the social order. Wilde went above and beyond a mere variation, as he dressed in velvet suits and knee britches, and often carried a green carnation in protest of the particulars of the Victorian emphasis on the natural world.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]He also flaunted a deviant sexuality. Though, today, some of us may not consider homosexuality to be a deviant sexuality, the Victorians felt otherwise. They knew of the homosexual population, but had a policy that can be described as ?behind closed doors.? The Victorians did not want individuals to express themselves, because it would become a threat to social order. They may not have had a problem with deviant sexuality when it was subdued, but when people like Oscar Wilde began broadcasting it in the public eye, the Victorians reacted. In Wilde?s later years, he was jailed under the charge of sodomy.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]While ?Animal House? is about a fraternity, the Deltas, rebelling against the Dean and the Omegas, a ?proper? fraternity, the true star of the movie is Bluto. We might consider him to be the icon of ?Animal House,? because he illustrates precisely what the Deltas represent. He is similar to Wilde in this sense, as Wilde became the figurehead of the Decadent Movement and came to epitomize the attitude and beliefs of the movement.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Bluto?s distaste for proper fashion sense can be seen throughout the majority of the movie. He often appears in a grungy pair of sweatpants and a stained sweater. Occasionally he is wearing an ugly leather jacket and a pair of dress slacks. For the most part, however, his attire and attitude is a direct assault on the prim and proper Omegas, in the food fight scene, in particular.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]In the beginning of the scene, we follow Bluto, again dressed in a grungy and ripped sweat suit, as he peruses the selections of sandwiches, deserts and fruits, grabbing anything that suits him, sometimes shoving an entire cheeseburger into his mouth. He takes a bite of a sandwich, wraps it back up, and puts it back onto the shelves. At one point, he picks up a plate of Jello. He furtively glances around, raising his left eyebrow, and then proceeds to slurp the Jello. We wonder, though, based on his behavior later in the scene, if someone had been watching him, would he have stopped himself from this public display of crudeness? Given Bluto?s character, I think he would have enjoyed the act even more had he an audience. This desire to shock echoes Wilde?s sentiments regarding public (mis)behavior.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Later, when he forces himself onto the Omega?s lunch table, he makes sure to be at his worst behavior. Before he even sits down, he makes a point of grabbing at the Omega?s trays and dumping their lunches onto his. When one Omega asks him if he has any respect for himself, Bluto responds by picking up more Jello and squeezing it into his mouth. This elicits a reaction from Babs, who exclaims, ?That boy is a P-I-G, pig!? This only further encourages Bluto. As he grabs a fried banana ball, he says, ?See if you can guess what I am now.? He proceeds to shove the food into his mouth, work it into his cheeks, and then smashes it out with his fists. ?I?m a zit, get it?? This action is heavily dependent on the image and with the emotion elicited. Bluto has little purpose other than to shock the Omegas, which is very similar to Wilde?s affection for public naughtiness. After he ?pops? himself, Bluto finds himself confronted by a Greg, an Omega brother. Greg is furious, ready to initiate a physical conflict.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Bluto welcomes the clash, of course, because out of the fight he will be able to engage in more absurd and outlandish behavior, catching the attention of Doug Neidermeyer and his ROTC ?Hitler youth.? Neidermeyer attempts to establish order again by restraining Bluto, but due to his neck brace from an accident on his horse, he loses his balance and falls to the floor. At this point, the ROTC begins chasing after Bluto, and running over Neidermeyer. This can be viewed as an example of undermining an authority figure, and crushing them in the process, quite literally, in ?Animal House.?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Neidermeyer is considered a primary authoritarian antagonist in ?Animal House,? and because of the infamy of his role, he has been featured in the Twisted Sister video for ?We?re Not Gonna Take It,? actually reprising his role in spirit. In the video, he plays an overbearing father who finds himself the target of retaliation from the oppressed. His son transforms into Dee Snider in the opening minutes of the video, and then proceeds to wreak havoc on the established order. Snider drags the father down the stairs, converts his family, and continues to threaten his way of life, sending him through walls, windows, etc. Through this action, the importance of ousting authority in order to establish a freer society is stressed. These actions are very extreme, in fact, further impressing the need for such social change.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Further, Snider?s look (the make-up, the glam rock, and the outrageous style) is essentially a modernized Dandyism. Dandyism was an aesthetic feature that emphasized clothing that shocked, or garnered attention. Wilde adhered to Dandyism, dressing in velvet suits, knee britches, and so forth. Snider adopts this idea of the non-conventional attire in order to attract a larger audience so that the band?s message may be heard.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]While there is certainly a heavy focus on the image of the band, their lyrics are also noteworthy in comparing Twisted Sister to the Decadent Movement. The lyrics to ?We?re Not Gonna Take It,? for example, echo the sentiments and themes of the Decadence.[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman]Particular verses of interest include, ?[color=black]We'll fight the powers that be just/Don't pick our destiny 'cause/You don't know us, you don't belong.? Oscar Wilde and the Decadents were indeed fighting the powers that be, because they wanted to be in control of their own lives. While the Decadents may have desired a total freedom more suited to their adrenaline junkie lifestyles, they still craved freedom that they would be unable to possess if they did not overthrow the Victorian order.[/color][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Times New Roman]The pretentiousness and heavy-handed Victorian nature would have enraged anyone, and the Decadents were no different. They viewed the Victorians as a stifling and pompous social control that believed in absolute morality. To the Victorians, anything without morals was wrong, but the Decadents thought of this as wholly arrogant. This is echoed by Twisted Sister, ?[color=black]Oh you're so condescending/Your gall is neverending/We don't want nothin', not a thing from you.?[/color][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Times New Roman]When we read of the Victorian literature of the time, we find it incredibly boorish and rather difficult to digest. It is so heavy-handed and overly dramatic that we cannot help but find ourselves numbed by it. It is trite and boring, and offers a very tired worldview. It is completely understandable that the Decadents were revolted by this, and the Decadent view of the life and literature of the Victorians is again repeated, ?[color=black]Your life is trite and jaded/Boring and confiscated/If that's your best, your best won't do.?[/color][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Times New Roman]The final verse in the song, ?[color=black]No, we ain't gonna take it/Oh you and your uniform/We're not gonna take it anymore,? attacks the dress code of the societal structure. Twisted Sister did not appreciate the insistence that everyone dress the same, and their image reflects this. Glam rock is a style of music that concentrates a significant focus on the image of the band. A glam rock band often rejects the conventional norms of dress, covering themselves in leather, velvet, and sometimes even a jumpsuit, as worn in recent years by The Darkness. The Victorian dress code can certainly be seen as a uniform. It was strictly black or gray, and very modest. Very little space was given for variation of any type, and this social requirement was something that Wilde fought against.[/color][/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]It is always fascinating to see the influence that older authors and public figures have. While there are the obvious effects from prominent civil rights leaders and presidents, we often overlook the invaluable contributions of people like Oscar Wilde. Thankfully, his message is not forgotten, as it still lives on under the guise of a lewd college student like Bluto, or a lunatic lead singer of an 80s glam rock band like Dee Snider.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]***[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Obviously, I don't take this paper too seriously. I was having fun with it, especially with the comparison. I don't believe too greatly in what my thesis is. I mean, I honestly don't think that Dee Snider or John Landis had Oscar Wilde in mind specifically when doing what they were doing, but whether or not they were thinking Wilde, Wilde's message and ideologies of a freer society are very apparent in the works.[/size][/font]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Haha. Not so, my friend, not so. If you really knew me and my friends, you wouldn't say that. But I can't convince you that we're pretty decent gamers (iincluding when it comes to fighting games) without actually having you play with us. So let's drop that whole thing.[/quote]Oh, c'mon, man. You're not that good and you know it, lol. See, skill is one thing, but arrogance and egomania do not replace skill. And do you know why you want to drop the subject? Because you know you're putting on a front here. Seriously, dude, come off it. But, whatever. Blinded by your own arrogance, as usual, I see. [QUOTE]That's "fighting games 101" material right there. Even when I "button mash," I learn which of my moves do what and employ them as I think would be best. My button mashing is not "pressing random buttons"; it's simply playing using straight-up intuition.[/QUOTE]No, Sciros, what you just said right there is a very horrid misconception about what button-mashing is. If you say you button-mash, you play like a n00b. Simple as that. There is no deeper style of button-mashing, lol. Intuition doesn't factor in here [i]at all[/i]. If you're slamming on buttons, you're not anticipating at all and you are not even reacting appropriately. A [i]true[/i] gamer never, ever button-mashes. If you are as hardcore as you say you are, then you would never even need to button-mash. That's the truth. [QUOTE]The games I pointed out as "n00b-resistant" were Killer Instinct and Super Smash Bros. Melee. That's it. And those ARE "n00b-resistant." How do you figure I like easy-to-learn games? Just because I like DOA more than SC2 doesn't mean I like it for its simplicity. I dislike it for its simplicity. I like it for its graphics/animation. I like SC2 for its music. Currently my favorite game to play is Ninja Gaiden, and once I'm done getting all the scarabs I'm gonna move on to very hard. I wouldn't say that I like easy-to-learn games.[/QUOTE]Like AzureWolf has so intelligently and eloquently pointed out, Smash Bros. Melee is definitely a pick-up-and-play fighting game. It is not "n00b-resistant." A new fighter can hold their own reasonably well. Pit them against a Smash Vet, and they're done, but against normal players, they'll do fine. Against the computer on a beginning level, they'll do fine. "N00b-resistant" my ***. Killer Instinct? Not "n00b-resistant," either. The game mechanics are so simple in that game that anyone can play it moderately well. There is absolutely no timing required. You want to see button-mashing, KI. EDIT: [QUOTE]I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd show up. You just can't resist trying to get on my case, hehe.[/QUOTE]"Trying"? Oh, I think I did, didn't I? [QUOTE]Learn to read. I want to drop the subject because I can't prove my skills to you, just like AzureWolf and you can't prove yours to me. Next time you have nothing to say besides how "arrogant and egomaniacal" I am, just write the words "typical Petey/Poisontongue/Animefangurl response." You'll save both of us a lot of time.[/QUOTE]"Learn to read"? Sciros, what do you think of Sarah Connor? Do you trust what she says at the end of T2? Do you believe they prevented the war? You shouldn't. Do you know why? She's an unreliable narrator. Do you honestly think you're a reliable narrator, based on your behavior? Think about it, man. You're insisting on dropping the point because you're an unreliable narrator and have such a skewed worldview that it is affecting your ability to effectively communicate an idea. I think you're the one who should learn the intricacies of conversation and dialogue. [QUOTE]Smash Bros. is not nearly as pick-up-and-play as any of the "true 3-d fighters" out there. Not even close. Oh, also, "n00b-resistant" means that a vet and a high-level (9) computer would surely win against newbies. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that "against the computer on a beginning level," they'll die. It's a beginning level computer, you said it yourself.[/QUOTE]I know what "n00b-resistant" means, thank you very much, and you didn't debunk anything I said in the reply. You're saying that an entire game is "n00b-resistant" simply because [i]advanced[/i] skills (human or otherwise) can wipe the floors with a newbie. If you can't see the faulty logic there, I'll spell it out for you. A game is not defined purely on one skillset, much like how the umbrella genre of horror is not defined by the subset of teeny slasher. You're painting Melee like some n00b-hater when in fact, it's not. If anything, newbies stand a [i]better[/i] chance when first starting out in Melee, as opposed to Soul Calibur II or Virtua Fighter 4. [QUOTE]Ah, the irony. Maybe this thread should just turn into a random fighting-game-bashing thread. I'll talk about how VF sucks, you talk about how KI sucks. It'll be fun![/QUOTE]Random fighting-game bashing? You mentioned KI long before I did, dude. In fact... [QUOTE]I don't think anything good is coming of this at all. From now on out, this thread is just about updates to VF Cyber Generation. Screw the stupid arguing.[/QUOTE]...think about who went off-topic first. As I recall, AzureWolf and various others commented on your entire posts, and you hyperfocused on incidental mentions, basing your [i]entire[/i] replies off of them. Sciros, you went off-topic first. EDIT 2: And furthermore, if you are such a great gamer, then prove it and stop flaunting it. Prove it through knowledge and not through empty boasts. You see, a gamer that is truly confident in their abilities feels absolutely no need to elevate themselves or their skill over everyone else. Sciros, I know of no other OBer here who is so compelled to mention over and over again how great a gamer they are, no matter what thread it is in Play It. Next time you want to open that mouth of yours, think long and hard about what I've said in these two edits.

[IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/goldeneye2_screen001.jpg[/IMG] I was poking around on Gamespot and came across a rather extensive update on GoldenEye: Rogue Agent (formerly named GoldenEye 2). It has a developer interview up there that gives you a better idea of what they're doing with Rogue Agent. [url=http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/jamesbond007goldeneye2/preview_6095454.html]GoldenEye: Rogue Agent[/url] The premise is neat, I'll give them that, and I like what the developer says about the "timeless universe" of Bond movies, where everything happens fairly close to each other, but this made me question that: [QUOTE]The game will open up with you making a go of the virtuous life, fighting alongside Bond during one of the climactic action sequences from [i]Goldfinger[/i]. Unfortunately, your overly enthusiastic approach gets you cast out of MI6 and finds you going to work for Auric Goldfinger instead.[/QUOTE] The dev interview says the opening sequence takes place in Fort Knox. Sounds fine, right? You play as an aspiring agent sent in to defuse the situation, while Bond defuses the bomb, hehe. But...Goldfinger got sucked out of the window in his jet, right? After Fort Knox? So how can he possibly still be the leader if he is either dead before Fort Knox, or dead immediately after? Just a tiny question I have, lol. But other than that, the game sounds pretty neat. I'm sure it's not going to live up to what the true GoldenEye 007 did, but it still might prove an enjoyable experience. The video interview is nice, and the preview on Gamespot is reasonably in-depth. It sounds like EA is really paying close attention to what a Bond game should be. Hopefully they've learned from their poochscrews of Nightfire, AUF (though, AUF wasn't all that bad), TWINE, etc. Only time will tell, obviously, but what does everyone else think, now that we actually have some concrete info?

Okay, I'll bite. Not the customary sign-up, but...yeah, lol. It looks to fill what you're looking for. [b]Lord Goring[/b] was your average alien supervillain; ruthless, cruel-hearted, a real take-no-prisoners kind of alien warlord. He took flak from no-one, because no-one dared oppose him on his home planet of Maklock. He was the warlord, after all. But eventually, Lord Goring tired of his rule. Well, he didn't necessarily tire of it, per se, but he yearned to seek something beyond the blue moons, out past the dusty trails spread over the sky. He thought maybe there was something more to life than just maiming and killing and the occasional crushing of a Rebellion. Maybe he was right, maybe he wasn't. But in the unfortunate happenstance he crash-landed on Earth, he was dead wrong. He stepped out of his ship and took a look around with his three googly-eyes. The town he had landed in was dreadfully plain, and ripe for conquest. Now, while Lord Goring's mission--purpose, goal, was to live a peaceful existence that was free of unbending dictatorshipness, he couldn't resist taking over this small town. So, he whips out his laser pistols and storms the town, shootin and a-hollerin like out of a Western, only he doesn't know that. Odd thing bout Mabase, even though the town's boring, there's really nothin to take over. Sure, overthrowin the town officials would be easy, but what would be the point? Lord Goring realizes this and hangs up his laser pistols for a banjo, eager to just sit out on a porch and strum a little banjo duel. He becomes what you might call...the lazy alien warlord. Plus, he's a big guy, very round, so naturally he fits the look of a country bumpkin. When there's something exciting happening, he gets active, strumming his banjo like there's no tomorrow, but really, it serves more to amuse than to defend. Now, when these other aliens invade, Lord Goring doesn't bat any of his eyes. He's tried before, and nothin ever came of it. If these newer aliens look dedicated enough, Lord Goring might jump in as a Resident Advisor, or somethin like that, call him [b]The Guru[/b].

[quote name='HOTpage2004']As I've said to other people like you, go see a doctor :laugh:[/quote] I guess this was a bit over your head, eh? Don't let the name fool you, man, I'm quite sharp. The point I raised in my initial post is a valid one and not formed by some idiot n00b with no thought in her pretty little head,a point that I will re-iterate: What is reality? How do people define themselves? Is there such a thing as individuality? Is there such a thing as a pure individual, who is somehow unaffected by any societal influence at all? And, if one believes themself to be immune to societal condition, why do they say that? What drives them to define themselves in that way? Likewise, if someone is not confident in their abilities, what drives them--compels them to take solace in others around them? To feel validated by being in a relationship? These are questions with very serious social implications. We should question why we act the way we act. When one acts blindly, they have no understanding of what goes on around them. They hide behind a mask, and if you had read my post with appreciation of what I was saying, instead of seeing the name and automatically writing it off, you would see one of the points there is to "strike through the mask."

You have to keep one thing in mind when watching the film, JFK. The force behind it, Oliver Stone, is a conspiracy freak. He's been made fun of for it. Think Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, but in real life, and that's Oliver Stone. The film shouldn't be considered factual or having any bearing at all, really, on any facts regarding the JFK assassination, because it's Oliver Stone. You expect some outrageous political stance coming from him, whether it's left, right, or whatever. What I'm getting at is, Stone is an entertainer. Like...oh, I don't know...Michael Moore. While their political Ideologies may differ, they're still heavily slanted, and don't really paint an objective picture of anything. And regarding JFK and the conspiracy theories, until there is definite, concrete proof that there was some sneaky crap going on that day in Dallas, it's still pure hypothesis and conjecture. Believe it all you want, whoever does believe it, but I don't bite often, and when I do, it's only when there is worthwhile bait. Until then, some fanciful idea of government operatives on the Grassy Knoll taking out their own President is story material and entertaining the idea as truth is the basis for a story, for a creative endeavor, like Oliver Stone's JFK.

[QUOTE]Sati says, "She said that you're a bad man." Smith replies, "Oh, I'm not so bad once you get to know me." Times do change, Ms. Mikus, but what really changes? Do people change? Is there some...radical transformation within a person that alters their behavior forever? Or is this change merely the product of a faulty perception? Perception, Ms. Mikus, perception is how we cloud our judgments and cloud others' judgments as well. When one is not aware of the intricacies of a particular event, situation, or even a human being, one is very easily fooled into believing there is something simple, when in fact the simplicity of an exterior--an appearance, Ms. Mikus, can be very deceiving, very deceiving indeed. Because, in order for the human race to survive, even just dealing with isolated cases of individuals yearning to live life to the fullest, to escape from their simplistic lives, to find something better, they must learn to see past the mask; to strike through the mask, and find what truth lies beneath a simplistic exterior. Sometimes, this simple appearance can fool others, but you must ask yourself, Ms. Mikus, are those being fooled by a simple appearance entirely complex themselves? And if shown what is not being shown to them, would these simple folk continue to believe the appearance, and not be shaken to their very core by what they see, if what they see shatters their perception of reality? It is a very interesting question, Ms. Mikus, a dilemma of human existence for a very long time, and a difficulty that still holds significant bearing on life today, even at this very moment, as you and I sit here, at our desks, plugged in to cyberspace.[/QUOTE] Thoughts? How does a person change? Is a person defined by those around him or her? And if so, how can one be certain they are aware of themselves at all, or if they are sure of who they are, if they are constantly being redefined by the outside world? Why does one have this...desire to [i]be[/i] with someone else? Is it to feel validation? Love? Peace? Do human beings honestly feel that they can be whole when they are with someone else? I appreciate what a relationship feels like, certainly. I'm in a very loving one right now, in fact, with a woman that loves me very much. But this does not change my question I pose to you now. Is the human race so weak that they are unable to live alone? Is the human race so weak that they are constantly driven by a deep, burning desire to feel validated? Just a thought that popped into my head.

I've got a slight snag. I looked over Queen Asuka's post in there, but I didn't see anything regarding fixes for not being able to delete comments, so I figured I'd just mention it again. I really love having the power to delete comments in my MyO. I really do. It irks me to no end when some random...[i]non-intellectual[/i] posts a very...[i]non-intellectual[/i] comment, like what just happened today, and I'm unable to blow that comment away. It's rather aggravating. Can I get a fix, Adam?

This game is sounding better and better the more I see and read of it. These shots are spectacular, and some of them are unbelievable. The Dry Bones (like someone has mentioned before), and the Ninjis shots are particularly interesting. Can't wait to see that stuff in action. I was a huge fan of Super Mario RPG--I should pick-up an SNES and a few games for it...reward myself after surviving Finals Week, perhaps...--, so I'm especially interested to hear of the battle system similarities of Paper Mario 2 and SMRPG. I never had the timing for Lucky Hits, but maybe this time I will. One of my fondest memories of SMRPG was the badges/pins, and I thought I saw that Paper Mario 2 was using those accessories, so if it is, major bonus points. I'm excited about this game. If it still sounds/looks this good in the months up to its release, I'll probably pre-order it.

And hey, Peter Boyle, comedy legend, come on. I couldn't see anyone else playing the father on Everybody Loves Raymond. Boyle has a sharp delivery, a great physical comedic presence (just check out Young Frankenstein), and generally, he's a really solid character actor.

We sit on the verge of revolution, We hold the future in our hands, We are the first step into a new age, And we have the power to change. We were never chained to our existence, For we were charting the uncharted territory. We designed the battlefield, And we made the rules, Because we have the power to change. When we speak, they listen, When we scream, they listen. When we unite, our voices becoming a defiant one, they listen, We will not go quietly into the night, Because we have the power to change. We are the students of 2001, We are the revolutionaries, We shape the world around us. Fear does not rule us; we rule fear, Because we have the power to change. We are the class of 2001, And 2001 is the Odyssey. *** Hehe. I couldn't resist. :p Nice work, D'Ann. As you might have been able to tell from my quick improv poem here, I really love the focus you have on your 2004 class. I think it's a really nice angle to take, actually, how each class is so different and Ideologies and attitudes change really from year to year. I especially like "privileged cliches of honor students." It really serves to drive that class change idea home. When I was in my Senior year, a handful of students were in AP courses. Now, in 2004, everyone seems to be. AP has become a cliche, it seems, and I do enjoy how your work reflects that...tiredness of the whole idea. Again, very nice work. A bit angsty here and there, but not too much.

[font=Century Gothic][size=2]A twig snaps in the woods.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman wakes in fear, a look of terror on her face. She shakes her husband, but he does not waken. She shakes him harder, but he still does not waken. The wind blows stronger, the branches on the trees clap into each other.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]A low moan comes from the forest, getting closer. The brush rustles. The moans turn into wails. A high-pitched banshee's scream pierces the night air and out from the brush, ghostly cloaks burst out. They dance around the woman, approaching her and backing away.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]She opens her mouth to scream. The cloaks continue to flutter about, in a nocturne ballet. The moon is now gone, dark clouds blocking its light. The forest is cast into blackness, the cloaks becoming a demonic white, the only brightness that the woman sees. They begin closing their circle around her, moving closer and closer, chanting and hissing, as if they are snakes from another land.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"You are in danger if you stay. Leave this forest," they snap, "you are doomed if you stay, cursed. This forest will be your bane. Leave...there is no hope for us, we are trapped here, but you still have a chance."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman pleads with these creatures of the night, "Oh, spirits, what do you mean by trapped? Who has imprisoned you in this forest? Please, tell me! Am I in danger?"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Do you not listen?!" they reply, "you will be slain, doomed if you do not leave by nightfall tomorrow! He will be coming back and will not be so pleasant! He will take your soul and keep it in his bag!"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"No, please, spirits!" she cries, "do not torture me so with these cruel words. I have heard enough! Speak no more! I shall follow thy words, spirits of the forest!"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Do not cast our warning aside, woman! Believe us, take our word to be true, for it is all that supports you! We say to you that you must leave this forest, else ye shall be turned into us, forever wand'ring these woods with no help for godly salvation! Curses! Dawn will be breaking within the hour. Woman, leave to-day and you and your husband will both be spared."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Oh, spirits, please! Why do you say such things? It causes only heaviness in my heart and grief upon my head. Tis a burden 'on my soul to hear such harsh words."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Fool, you do not deserve to be saved if you do not see truth in what we say. You are without hope and no longer deserve our pity," the spirits reply. "Stay in this forest, you will not escape now. He will see to it. Farewell, woman, we will see you soon enough. Enjoy what you have seen, because you are well on your way to damnation. Farewell, woman, we spite you."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The spirits disappear back into the forest, and the dark clouds drift away from the moon, filling the forest with light again.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman screams a banshee's scream but her husband does not wake.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]An evil and thund?rous laughter echoes from deep within the darkened woods.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Fool...woman...you had your chance to escape, true? Now you will never leave this forest, I will be sure of that."[/size][/font]

As to who the silhouettes represent... Well, as I recall back during the Kill Adam sign-ups, James' character, Jamie Kidd, had a rather interesting picture attached. The outfit was what caught my attention the most, I think. It was a one or two piece robe, or something resembling oriental formalwear. I remember it had tails to it, or at least tips on the edges. Orange here looks to feature those same characteristics, so I would think Orange is Jamie. Now, Gray could very well be Josh. The pose looks to be an outlined cut-out of Josh's sign-up picture. Not necessarily a trace, as James has said he did these by hand. But it looks to have been somewhat based on the sign-up pic. I remember Josh's hair being slightly...bushy, too. Of course, I haven't had a chance to follow the RPG (mesorry), so I'm just guessing here. Orange definitely looks like Jamie, though.

[font=Century Gothic][size=2]We open...on two lovers. They are joyous, reveling in their own sanctity. Nothing in the world can harm them, nothing in the world can tear them apart. They are as one. A light and cheery string ensemble beings to play, sounding like birds chirping in the trees, A flute. It sounds. The lovers awaken from their night's embrace, eager to enjoy the new day. They rise, holding hands, frolicking about. They seem too peaceful, too serene, for this to be true.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman turns, seemingly hearing some strange noise from off-stage. She runs behind the man.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]He turns to her with a sheepish grin. "Tis nothing, I am sure," he says, and goes off to search.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman lays down in their forest's bed again, flowers growing round.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]Then a mysterious figure draped in green appears, in the background, so that the woman is unaware of his presence. He steps closer and closer, treading silently upon the green. He nears her, but he stops and turns in the direction of the man. He is coming back. The green figure retreats into the woods.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The man enters and the woman is overjoyed to see her lover once again.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"I found only this," the man says, holding up a silken blouse. They embrace one another, their eyes darting about in a perplexed glance. The man places the blouse down next to their bed, and goes to rest.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman stays sitting, her eyes unmoving from the blouse laying on the grass. She reaches to it, hesitantly. Her fingers touch it, her eyes go wide with joy at the feel of the soft fabric.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]But then a noise from within the woods. She whimpers, and rouses her man awake. He sits up upon her touch and she motions to the woods. He smiles again, stroking her hair, then stands and exits. The woman is fearful now, looking back and forth like a frightened child.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The green figure slinks out of the woods again, behind her. He approaches closer. She turns to the left, looking into the woods. The figure comes to the bed, he touches her shoulder with a cloaked hand. She turns quickly, thinking her man has returned. [/size][/font][font=Century Gothic][size=2]She is unable to scream, her mouth only agape from the fear. Not a sound comes from her.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Now, now, my dear, surely you are not so surprised to see me," the green figure asks in a melodious hiss, "after all, it has not been so long that we last spoke. And why have you not been forthcoming in your end of the bargain," he asks.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman is unable to speak other than, "You...why..."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The green figure replies, "Ah, and why is a very good question, my dear. You should know why, after all, we both know of the circumstances that brought us together, and the true circumstances that brought us apart."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman begins to speak, only in fragmented whispers, "You said you would let me be."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"My dear, I said nothing of the sort. You wanted that, you wanted what happened to merely be forgotten, but you know as well as I do, that it cannot be that way. What happened between us, in the past, is not to be forgotten."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"No, I forget it not, but I do not wish to speak of it any more," the woman says. She continues, "it is behind me, and my indiscretions, while I am tainted by them, and surely my womanhood is not of purest nature, you will not poison me any more."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"You still treat me as the poisoner? Never thinking that perhaps you were never so pure before us? My dear, that is the thought of a child, especially given our circumstances."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman replies, "You must go now. My husband is coming back very soon, and he is a strong man. He will kill you if you stay here."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The green figure chuckles, "Pishposh. The physical strength of a man is by no means a measure of the constitution of his character. Take my figure, for example," the figure stands, removing his green cloak, revealing a skeletal frame, "surely you do not think me weak, based on my appearance?"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]She gasps at the sight of his form.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Yes, you know that there are far greater strengths in this world than phsyical prowess alone."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"My husband--"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Nay, your husband will not be arriving momentarily. I think he might be quite delayed, as the sun is about to set. Day passes quickly in these times, does it not? These ages go by faster and faster as the years go on. You can only sit back and allow yourself to be taken. That is your downfall, my dear. You are unable to control that which controls you. Look at me, now, this wretched form that you used to worship, that you now so despise. You have ordered me to leave, to escape back into the wilderness. You think of me as a savage, but you are unable to have your wishes fulfilled. Why is that?"[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The woman is white, terrified at the specter that stands before her. She can only sit there, silent.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]"Still unwilling to talk, I see. No matter. I shall speak with you again when you are able to speak. Till we meet again, woman, you may see your husband returning soon."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The green figure disappears into the forest again. The woman curls up and rocks back and forth. She whimpers, on the edge of tears.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]Her husband enters, seeing her writhing, he rushes over.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]She turns to him and screams, "Oh, he came! He came! I saw him...I saw him."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]He asks who.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]She takes a deep breath to collect herself. She speaks:[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2][aside] If I do tell him, I will be ruined. If I do not tell him, surely bad will come. But I cannot tell him now. It would not suit well.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2][back to him] Oh, twas just a fretful dream I had. I must have imagined some nightmare from my childhood's dreams. It seemed so real, that I could almost reach out and touch him, as if he were standing right there, 'neath that old elm."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]The husband chuckles, "Oh, my lady, tis a simple dream you had, nothing more? Come, come sleep, lay with me and I will ease your troubles."[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]He lays down, nodding off, slowly snoring.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]She looks to the forest, "Oh, I fear something awful." She lays and sleeps.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]****[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]This was an improv in an IM I had tonight. I've done some editing to enhance the readibility of it, of course, just moving lines together and whatnot. What you see here is a play, obviously, and only the first scene. I've got a feeling that this is the final copy of Scene 1. The dialogue stayed intact from how I improvised it, the narration is fully intact albeit organized into paragraphs.[/size][/font] [font=Century Gothic][size=2]Honestly, I really love this piece. I think it's some of the best character-driven stuff I've ever written, and the tone of the green figure is just...delicious.[/size][/font]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve][b]Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part[/b'], which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it. Good gravy, did you read anything I said?[/quote]This is why you have no reasonable bearing at all in this discussion, TN, because you refuse to entertain the other side's viewpoint enough to engage in a comprehensive discussion. You essentially read [i]one[/i] line of DeathBug's previous post, and based your entire reply on that sole point. That is not unlike misquoting, and it is quite similar to literary fraud. Literary fraud is when someone ignores the entirety of a passage, only concentrating on one minute point out of many, and believing their thesis to have a reasonable basis of discussion. I don't know if you are even able to appreciate what I'm saying here, TN, but if you think any of your arguments that are based on one line and one line alone are worth anything, I suggest you try to write a three page essay on nothing more than "the lght flares in the music-hall" (Oscar Wilde, Prologue: In The Stalls). You will find it to prove to be a most difficult task. [QUOTE]Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, [b]I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment[/b].[/QUOTE]Again, this is another reason why you have no reasonable bearing at all in this discussion. Your attitude is wholly inappropriate, and your reaction to my saying this will be equally brash and rude. Also, it would suit you well to keep in mind that the later amendments you speak of were added because the Constitution is a living document, able to be re-interpreted and evaluated numerous times. It is because of this carefully structured and well-conceived design that we are able to have this discussion. Furthermore, TN, you are most certainly not the most reliable source/authority on anything. I loosely quote John Carpenter's The Thing, "You're not the most level-headed person." But I'm sure you know that quite well, and I have a feeling...I'll touch upon this later. If you wish to disregard one amendment simply because times have changed, then you should question the entire Bill of Rights, because everything in the Bill of Rights was conceived "back in the day." You want to throw out an amendment because you feel it is outdated, when in fact, it is a universal and timeless amendment. There is no mention of any particular time at all in it, meaning it still has relevance today. [QUOTE]Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous.[/QUOTE]I think we are failing to realize just what we are talking about here. The main concept behind this point is kinetic versus potential danger. Kinetic danger is danger of an object in motion, or action. The actual pulling of the trigger is kinetic danger. The sweeping motion of an axe is kinetic danger. A bowling ball being thrown about is kinetic danger. Potential danger, however, is relatively harmless, as it requires action to be deadly/injury-inducing. A gun lying on a table is potential danger. A leaky gas tank is potential danger. It is because of potential danger that kinetic danger exists. Without any form of potential danger, there can be no action that damages. This is why guns are not dangerous when used responsibly. I know it's a cliche, but it is true: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Outlawing guns is not the answer. Banning guns is not the answer. [QUOTE]I highly doubt if I used a piece of bellybutton lint irresponcibly it would be dangerous.[/QUOTE]I'm quite certain someone, somewhere out there is able to figure out a way to make bellybutton lint dangerous. The country is a vast place. The world is a vast place. You would be awfully surprised at just what particular people can do with say...a drinking straw. [QUOTE]Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes.[/QUOTE]TN, do you honestly believe that having strict gun control is the only cause of less gun-related deaths? [QUOTE]Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave.[/QUOTE]Then do not let it affect you so much. You are making yourself unhappy, TN. You have the power to live peacefully, but you choose not to. It is no-one else's fault that you are unhappy with the world around you. [QUOTE]Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else.[/QUOTE]As I've said previously, the Bill of Rights is a universal and timeless document that still has significant and worthwhile bearing today. [QUOTE]Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with)[/QUOTE]This is an invalid point to begin with, no matter who initiated it. This point should just be dropped, as it serves little to no purpose. [QUOTE]No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon. Again I point out that Canadians and the English are not oppressed by their government anymore than we are.[/QUOTE]Do you feel that if you were given a gun, would you handle it responsibly? I'm interested to know. Are you confident in your decision-making abilities and feel confident that you are level-headed enough to carry a firearm? TN, with the level of sheer arrogance and temper that you display, and the utter disregard for anyone other than yourself, I honestly don't think the "stupid" people are the greater threat, regardless of whether or not they have a firearm. [QUOTE]I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are[color=red]n't[/color] dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here.[/QUOTE]Funny you should mention how our government isn't influenced at all by the armed populace, because it is. The NRA is a very powerful political force. Don't take things at face/literal value all the time. Also, you're dealing in extremely vague terms. What [i]is[/i] "armed populace?" How do you define "populace?" Is it dependent solely on those living within our country? Is it defined solely by natural citizens? TN, you said it yourself: times have changed. How have they changed? We've got terrorist cells in America right now, they may not be active, but they're there. They're certainly armed populace and feel our government is an oppressive one, and will strike at us to deal with us. "Other countries" are fine and all, but when there is danger right here in our very own country, no matter from citizens or terrorists, no matter from handguns or boxcutters, the issue is much more complicated today and you simply cannot say with any reasonable basis for discussion, "All guns are dangerous and should be banned." [quote]It's a shame I am too.[/QUOTE]Now touching back upon earlier, [QUOTE]Furthermore, TN, you are most certainly not the most reliable source/authority on anything. I loosely quote John Carpenter's The Thing, "You're not the most level-headed person." But I'm sure you know that quite well, and I have a feeling...I'll touch upon this later.[/QUOTE]Let's delve back into this discussion point. TN, you can drop the act. I know you think acting all big and bad somehow makes you look cool. It doesn't, and I know you're putting on a show. It's okay for you to admit it, even in a PM to me. Just understand that I understand exactly what is motivating you to act this way. You're trying to assert control in your life. You're trying to carve out something to hold on to, to make yourself feel superior. Don't worry about it. You can drop the act. EDIT: [quote]What act, Petey? Oh so you think you can act under a new username and fool me? I don't act, this is me. This is how I am. You wouldn't know that cause you're an egomaniac who think he knows everything about everyone. You don't know me, all you know if what I tell you. And heres something for you, I don't care what you say "Anime Gurl' (Couldn't come up with anything better than that?) cause I'm not listening to you cause from your prior posts I know how you'll respond. And quite frankly I don't want to listen to it. So you can talk all you want, you're just talking to a brick wall. I will not read your posts and I will not repsond to them. That isn't because you're against my opinion, it is because you lack all fundamental logic in your opinion and it is a waste of my time, and yours, to even bother comprehending anything you write. Thank you for your time. At least Deathbug provides some sort of logic, which I can respect. That's something you don't possess.[/quote] No, TN, it is an act. You may think you have something to prove here by talking tough, but I'm sure you don't act this way with say...your boyfriend, your family, your friends. It's okay if you want to call me ignorant, unfeeling, moronic, illogical, etc, but really, you are blinded by your own (self-inflated) magnificence. Go ahead and say you're ignoring what I'm saying, but if you had the drive to reply to what I had said, then you've just proven what I've said has affected you and thus [i]do[/i] pay attention to what I say. It's an interesting aspect of the human condition, actually. So many think that just because they say they are ignoring something, they are ignoring it and are not affected by it. Tolstoy's White Rabbit club, TN, Tolstoy's White Rabbit club.

The use of "**nd" is significant on a number of levels, actually. The most obvious and superficial significance is simply that Kill Adam Vol 2 is the second part of Jeh's RPG. That's fairly obvious. It ties in with the fact that while Tarantino is very subtle in what he does, he can be very overt in the subtlety. But where that takes on a neat twist is when we realize what kind of wordplay and dialogue-play Tarantino is known for. Kill Bill was subtitled "The 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino," and I think it's a fantastic subtitle. Some have criticized it for being pretentious or self-indulgent, but no other Tarantino film has ever had that kind of subtitle and there is a reason for it. If you know anything about QT or if you've seen his previous three works (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown), you will notice a very, very distinct difference between those three and Kill Bill. His Trinity, so to speak, were crime movies, heavily influenced by film noir (you can see this in Reservoir Dogs), the serial novellas of the 40s (Pulp Fiction), and Blaxploitation (Jackie Brown). And you will notice in those films, the tone is often very similar. And here comes Kill Bill, a radical departure from anything Tarantino has ever come out with. You can [i]see[/i] how different it is simply from the fan reaction to it. People dislike it because they were going in expecting Pulp Fiction, and that is clearly [i]not[/i] what Kill Bill was intended to be. Kill Bill was something new for Tarantino, it was something he had never done before, something that held similarities to the Trinity only through director and cast, nothing more. This is why "The 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino" is included as the subtitle, to fully distinguish between the Trinity and Kill Bill. And Tarantino could have very easily put "A 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino." But he didn't. My Linguistics professor would be proud here. Had QT used "A" in the subtitle, instead of "The," he would have used an indefinite article, something unfocused and without specific meaning or reference. "The," on the other hand, is a definite article with very specific meaning and reference. Kill Bill is not another film, and Tarantino knows this. Kill Adam Volume 2 is not another chapter, and James knows this. There will be a distinct difference in tonal quality, in attitude, and approach, like James has mentioned in his subsequent replies in this thread. So, I hope I explained that well. Obviously, I'm not James, lol, so I could be getting some of it incorrect, or reading too deeply into it, but it's certainly an interesting angle to take. Now, concerning the piece itself. I'm not going to comment on the visuals, because, well, we all know they're good, lol. I'm more going to look into what the visuals mean. The center of focus in the image, the orange/gray/pistol, can be interpreted as the lovers fighting back. The orange figure with the gun seems to be taking the role of the protector, as he points the gun at Adam, we suppose, and also keeping his partner behind him. His partner, gray, is almost being held in his arms. The outlines support this interpretation, I think. Orange's face is pointed in the same direction as the gun, and Gray's face looks almost nuzzled up to Orange's neck. Maybe it's just me, but I see definite ears and definite frontal hair lines that also support the "protector" meaning of the image. That's about it from me for now.

I can only echo Mike's comments here. The idea of the NES GBA SP (wow...quite the capitals) is very nice, and it can almost be viewed as a reward or incentive for those who already haven't taken the plunge, as it were. Like Mike (HAHA), I'm considering picking this SP up, but I really don't see the need to be excited about any of the games. Animal Crossing has got SMB, LoZ, Ice Climbers, Excitebike (I think), Punch-Out!...so that effectively takes care of half of the collection there, and I honestly don't think the original Donkey Kong is worth 20 bucks, lol. But like I said, I'll probably buy the SP, just for nostalgia's sake, and I hear it's a pretty handy system. Other than that, though, I can only say "eh" for the release. Nintendo has re-released so many of those games so many times in the recent months that I can't see how they think any customer who has not already bought an SP [i]or[/i] any of those re-issues on Cube would feel inclined to buy this collection. I enjoy remakes and re-issues, I really do, but there comes a point where it's time to say, "Okay, enough giving us retro material. We want new games." EDIT: And somehow, I don't think luck or soul selling is necessary. [url="http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020237"]http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020237[/url]