BlueYoshi

[color=teal]Also, about FFTA, don't even think about going for 100% completion unless you've got a friend or two who have got the game and can lend you a hand in trading rare items and stuff. You'll be stuck far beyond your imagination when you only need that one last mythril weapon to finish your character off. But if that's not your style then the game is cool. Certainly not a developed story line but the gameplay and dynamics of it make it one of the best for the GBA.[/color]

[color=teal]IGN released images displaying thel lay out of the PSP a few days ago. They claim to have got the pics from GameWatch, who apparently got them from an anonymous source, heh. Even though they look dodgy and may be annotated on some unofficial diagrams, the images match the version of the PSP model shown at E3, so they ought to be reliable. Read[/color] [url=http://psp.ign.com/articles/523/523021p1.html][u]this article[/u][/url] [color=teal]to find out about the specifics in more detail. It looks very high-tech, which is interesting because some people may get put off by how complex it may look at first site and the compatible gadgets required to fully operate it, unlike the SP where there were only four action buttons, start and select, a d-pad, and two slots for the charger and link cable.[/color] [url]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040614001233819.jpg[/url] [img]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040618060743248.jpg[/img] [img]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040614001234147.jpg[/img] [img]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040611101312198.jpg[/img] [url]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040618060743482.jpg[/url] [url]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040618060740076.jpg[/url] [img]http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/523/523021/psp-close-up-look-20040611101312620.jpg[/img]

[color=teal]I can't believe Germany drew with Latvia the other day. I guess I underestimated them because I really thought that Germany would win so I started making future plans already. We're going to have to beat Czech Rep. in that case and by some miracle I hope Holland lose to Latvia just as a back up. Anyone catch Spain vs. Portugal yesterday? The stipulation was rough; whoever wins goes through, whoever loses gets knocked out. My brother was in deep depression after Spain lost... they were his team. Portugal won a hard earned game though, what can I say, they truly deserved that win as Spain aren't exactly a pushover. My hopes are really high for Germany, their game against Czech will be a good one even if we lose--two top class teams playing pitted against each other is all I could ask for really--but most of all I'm looking forward to England vs. Croatia today. I can't quite put my tongue on which I think will win; they're both pretty evenly matched in my opinion. Anyway, lots of luck England fans, there's a massive park that has a huge widescreen TV near where I live so I might go there to watch it.[/color] :p

[color=teal]Another series was made that showed the lives of Zack, Screech, Slater, and Kelly in their college years, which is what it was called. Nothing special, not at all like the original. I like Zack's Bart Simpson-esque attitude the most, he managed to piss that head teacher off in every way possible, heh. You can catch it on Trouble, if you have that channel, along with a more updated version of the Fresh Prince.[/color]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo']Another great show was Danger Mouse (which may have been syndicated by that time).[/color][/quote] [color=teal]Gotta love that theme song, eh? I also watched a couple of military based cartoons when I was younger, like G.I.Joe and the animated Rambo series. Those shows were so corny, you'd get the typical bada** character, and at the same time there was the hero who always prevailed, while the bada** never actually pulled off what he claimed he was going to do in the first place. Also, every character had a collection of their own lethal looking guns, but nobody [i]ever[/i] seemed to use them, and if a car or a truck was going to blow up, the passengers and driver would always have enough time to leave the vehicle just before it exploded. Rambo looked nothing like Stallone in the animated version, I swear. He was twice as buffed and three times as cocky, but that doesn't explain how he managed to get his butt whooped by the other bad guy spoofs. Samurai Pizza Cats was my all time favourite though. Like any typical cartoon, each character had their own personality; one was the leader, one was extremely feminine, etc. The most impressive thing about it is how exactly it was developed... who would have known that merging cats, pizza, and martial arts would produce such a successful take? It was only back in the day could such originality have been displayed, shows that are still being produced from that time are deteriorating as we speak, completely shoving aside how brilliant they once were. The Simpsons is a good example. Kids these days will never have the luxury to grow up and ask one another, "So, what shows were you into when you were a kid?" I guess we're just the lucky ones.[/color]

[color=teal]Interesting points. I'm prepared to leave that aside for now because we could go on all day. Instead, let me take your attention to yet another Biblical theory regarding what exactly is in the briefcase. So I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] yesterday, only this time I had a broader span of Bible knowledge relevant to the aesthetic involvement of God. Marcellus has a plaster on the back of his head. This is the one place that the Bible states where the Devil will drag your soul. Now, taking your remark about the code being '666', I decided to put it to use and accept that the Devil has some sort of revelation in the movie. Marcellus sold his soul to the Devil, and he wanted it back, so he sent in Vincent and Jules (one might call these two 'God's helpers) to retrieve it for him. The four people who had his soul were the 'Devil's helpers', because their aim was to get it and ultimately pass it on to someone who would actually represent the Devil in PF, but we don't see that person. According to the Bible, when you sell your soul to the Devil you will obtain infinite power and authority--Marcellus is a pretty powerful man when we see him in PF, it's him who gives the orders. Marcellus sent Vincent and Jules in to get his soul--to save his soul--from the Devil, thus explaining why they are both considered as God's helpers. Inevitably, the evil lose and the good win. When the guy in the bathroom unloaded on Vincent and Jules, he missed every single shot. Reason being that God came down and stopped the bullets... God didn't want them to die because hence, they were saving a soul. This was the divine intervention that they were heatedly discussing in the diner. I hope that explains the possible outcome of the case (my interpretation anyway), and how the divine intervention was meant to be viewed. To sum it up, it's a battle between God and the Devil himself, but QT uses a very subliminal method about telling us this, and that's what's most compelling about it. It would be very dull if he sat there in an interview and explained what was supposed to be in the case, so I'd take it that some things are best left untold.[/color]

[color=teal]I've only rented FSA so far; I haven't got the cash for anything these days. Single player isn't all that considering I'm only on the first level, and hopefully my experience with FSA right now will draw the line that tells me whether to buy it or not. I don't find the controls to be that much of a nuisance because after all, it's great to finally see a game that's both deep and optimistic. Call me a perfectionist, but I don't want to dwell too much into the game through one player mode since I'm more determined about playing it with friends as I lack the amount of SP's and brothers, heh. One thing I'm yet to find out about multi is essentially the amount of freedom that each player has and what say they have in the progression of the dungeons. I'm aware that once one Link enters a house or underground cave, a GBA screen will appear on the screen that lets Link move about in that certain place whilst the others are still scattered around doing their own things. But does that really combine equality with gameplay? The Chalice ordeal in FFCC was a let down for the multiplayer mode but the game was reasonably good, it may have lacked a few things but there weren't really any inadmissible flaws that I or anyone else noticed about it. Anyway, that's beside the point. I like what I've heard about each Link having the ability to only carry one weapon at a time; having four fully tooled up Links would make the battle aspects of the game a walkover... but I can't help but notice how much of a side quest-esque style of gameplay has been adopted. Many side quests in games share the same properties as FSA, because you theoretically start fresh at the beginning of every dungeon. I mean, FSA has side quests and mini games of its own, but that's a rather naff statement because that's not what I see the overall game to be at all. What's most impressive about FSA though is how it's covered almost [i]every[/i] angle in terms of multiplayer. There's co-op, competition, a selection of nice mini games, and even a deathmatch. The game is a very dilute sample of what Nintendo can offer us in total, and for those who actually prefer 2D graphics, you [b]know[/b] you wouldn't mind seeing at least a 3D version of FSA. ~_^ Sadly, I'm just as stuck as you guys are when it comes to multi player mode. I haven't had the honour yet and simply put, I can't wait. I'd really appreciate any feedback from someone who's had the full experience.[/color] EDIT: I just saw how the camera zooms out to reveal the entire perimeter of the area you're in, and it looks real sweet. It tells you what to expect whilst there, so to speak, you won't be as wary as you would be not knowing, but none the less it seriously enhances the graphics by far.

[color=teal]ReFlux, sorry if you misunderstood me. I wasn't having a go at you or anything; I was just clarifying what I thought of the briefcase as a whole. So yeah, sorry about that. ^_^[/color] [quote name='Bean']What is Idolatry, and how is it represented in Pulp Fiction? I'm not quite sure what you meant by what I bolded, but it sounds like you're saying that since the T.C.'s prohibit Idolatry, QT would have needed to be very overt in his presentation of religious themes. Is that about right? I'm not quite sure that supports your argument.[/quote] [color=teal]What I'm trying to say is that if QT wanted a religious casting in his film, then he must obviously have his own thoughts about it whether or not he?s a believer, and on the basis of the points you've made it can easily be seen that QT does have respect for religion and does believe in God, but if that was the case then why would he break the rules whilst trying to achieve the complete opposite? Simple, the Second Commandment is the most commonly broken one of them all. If QT had taken that into consideration, then there would be no image or reference of God or Satan, but he didn't, he wanted to make his movie whilst subliminally parading Heaven and Hell--how can he though? He defied one of the Ten Commandments. That's a kind of farfetched perspective of the religious aspect in Pulp Fiction, I'll admit that, but the boot fits for me.[/color] [quote]While Jules may not be God exactly, he certainly represents religious values, true? He does in fact preach Ezekiel 25:17, never really understanding what it meant until the divine intervention, like you said. But if he doesn't understand what he is preaching, he's not all that different from the usual religious leaders. Agreed? I mean, many of the prominent religious figures today don't "get" or practice what they preach. In this sense, Jules becomes a criticism of religious doctrine, how conflicted it is.[/quote] [color=teal]Agreed. Jules is the servant God, not because QT wanted him to be in correlation to the religious values, but because that's simply his character. The opening scene doesn't vibrate much one the fact that Jules is a religious man, you get the impression he's a normal guy doing a normal hit. His actions in the hotel with the dealer did reflect exactly the fundamental truth behind the Ezekiel 25:17, but he just didn't realise it. Later on in the diner, Jules' eyes were opened due the events that previously happened, namely the divine intervention, he knew the situation very well and only then was he able to personify the Ezekiel passage and what he wants to do in life because it finally smacked him in the face--it wasn't a tool for scaring people at all. Vincent is a very different matter though. Many teachers take huge responsibility of their disciples as they know they carry a huge burden, and mean to teach them well. In the diner, Vincent insisted so urgently to Jules that he either takes back his $1500 or he'll shoot Ringo on general principle, in a way, you could almost say that Vincent was trying to give Jules advice, but that's not the point. Vincent, the son of a preacher man, must have been guided by Jules' religious authority through out the course of his duty and so, should know better than to kill someone or have the intent to kill over money.[/color] [quote]Jules works for Marsellus, fair enough, but is Marsellus God? Seems more like the Devil. After all, the briefcase's combination is 666. When we are first introduced to Marsellus, the setting is a red-lit bar. In fact, Marsellus as the Devil is supported when we see Butch making a deal with Marsellus--making a deal with the Devil. So what is Butch? A lost soul, searching for answers? Salvation, perhaps? Makes sense, I think.[/quote] [color=teal]Butch I don't think holds any sort of religious implementation. Simply put, he just wants to settle down with his girlfriend and keep himself to himself. After all, I can't think of any man who'd want to save the devil, but his reasons are his own. He certainly isn't of any representative value as far as God goes because he aided the devil, befriended him in a way. The 666 is just superstition to me though, it could very well be that the devil is inside of the briefcase as whatever?s inside it is evil, or it could merely be an easy number to remember... but I feel the image of holiness and God stretch far beyond the possibilities of Pulp Fiction. It's fun to sit and chat about the messages and stuff, but I'd also like to appreciate the movie for what it is, too, so no disrespect there.[/color] [quote]BlueYoshi, don't forget that 99% of what we see in Tarantino's films are totally deliberate and intentional, which means if we see something, chances are, it was meant to be that way. QT is anal retentive when it comes to details, and I think based on what we've seen in PF regarding the religious imagery and thematics, we can't deny what is going on with the characterizations...Jules as the God figure or servant of God; Marsellus as Satan; Vincent as the Fallen Son; Mia as an Eve, of sorts...it's all so concrete and clear that I don't think we can doubt the intent.[/quote] [color=teal]We have to remember how exactly Pulp Fiction was made and put together. All three stories were originally set to be separate films, but unfortunately that never worked out for him (I'm a bit hazy in that department, lol). With that, he decided to combine the three scripts together, adding some parts in and taking some out, and so, the non-linear adaptation of Pulp Fiction was created. Now, I don't know if Pulp Fiction reflects Tarantino's temperament on God, but I find it hard to believe that three totally different scripts and stories managed to share your view on God's presence. What I do know is that it's no coincidence, that's for sure.[/color]

[color=teal]Yeah you're right. I got that information from IGN and with them being a games site mainly, I got a bit confused with what they were trying to say. [quote]The title "The Chronicles of Riddick" is the name of the upcoming summer sequel film, and Vivendi-Universal is in production on a videogame prequel due out around the same time currently under the working title "Chronicles of Riddick" (working off the name of the film to form a sandwiching saga that get in on both sides of Riddick's story) due out around the same time.[/quote] Okay, I was completely misled by this quote because I didn't read it properly. Once again, Charles was right, the quote above states the Xbox game is the prequel to Pitch Black, and the film Chronicles of Riddick [I]is[/I] the sequel. Sorry 'bout that.[/color]

[color=teal]Chronicles of Riddick [i]is[/i] the prequel to Pitch Black, so if you want your history reverting to the main feats of COR you'd be better off watching Pitch Black first. Also, there's a sequel to Pitch Black that's to be released soon, but I forgot it's name... don't worry it will come back tot me, I'll just edit this post when it does, heh.[/color]

[color=teal]Nope. It can't be the diamonds from Reservoir Dogs. If you remember correctly, [spoiler]every colour-coded thief was killed, with the exception of Mr. Pink who made off with the diamonds, but was apprehended by the police immediately after, so with that in mind they must have confiscated them.[/spoiler] It's most likely drugs or gold or anything like that. I've worked out every angle trying to figure out what was in the case to the extent that I'll only believe anything I hear about it if it's an official statement from Tarantino himself.[/color]

[color=teal]Tarantino's films are out of the ordinary. Besides the content of them, they are most popular for the subliminal messages in them within certain parts of some scenes, like ReFlux already said. I can think of many trademarks aspects that QT has ventured with some of his films, ranging the from the most obvious one; the black suits, the repitition of characters and names, and the use of briefcases, all the way down to the more complex hidden ideals such as the one Bean mentioned. I have to agree with Bean's theory regarding the mass of Pulp Fiction being a partial adaptation of Othello and his affairs, that seems pretty spot on in my books, but then again, it could mean just about anything. I'm not so keen on your view of seeing Jules as the image of God though, Bean. It is a reasonable argument and truthfully I had pretty much gathered that information too, but after watching the film over and over I managed to convince myself to totally turn against that thought. It's pretty simple really. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits the ownership or distribution of images, so if QT did try to implement any form of a religious theme to Pulp Fiction then I doubt he would have used such an indirect approach. I understand that all the pieces are in the right places and everything seems to link together smoothly, but it's still a misfitting contraption to me. An easy trap to fall into. Granted, between Jules and Vincent, Jules is the wiser, however, I prefer to see their specified roles in a much different way. During the opening chapter, the two hitmen interacted with each other personally and conversed with one another like friends normally would. In the light of that, it was Vincent who led the most part of their discussion inside the car and hotel. But, when they both confront three of the four dealers who ripped Marcellus off, it's Jules who mesmerises with everyone while Vincent lies out in the back with a totally smug attitude. They practically switch roles once they get down to their line of work. Don't get me wrong, Vincent certainly wasn't scared during that incident, but I got the impression that he just wanted to get the job done and dusted as quickly as possible, and this was proved to me by the level of enthusiasm he displayed when it came down to [spoiler]killing the dealers off[/spoiler]. Jules on the other hand simply wanted to help them in a non-meaningful way even though he knew he had to inevitably [spoiler]kill them[/spoiler]. He wanted to share his morals and ideologies to the viewers as well as in the film. As a matter of fact, Jules said it himself that the passage, Ezekiel 25:17, he always used was something he proclaimed to as scary, especially as something to preach before he would "pop a cap up someone's a**", but he never actually gave the true meaning of Ezekiel 25:17 much thought before the incident involving 'divine intervention' took place. Conceiving, Jules is a solid character who will show a fair amount of compassion to his friends and those close to him if he feels they deserve it, and is also willing to strike down his enemies. Truly a man who bares many similarities to God himself, but somehow he just doesn't quite push the button for me. Anyway, regarding the above, I haven't since thought of a corollary reason that justifies Jules' and Vincent's natural behaviour patterns in Pulp Fiction. It's weird to say the least, not many directors show as much commitment to the making of a film the way QT does, and the fact that his films are aimed at a highly matured audience stress that there will be some puzzling attributes that make the core of it. Here's an interesting point I discovered from Pulp Fiction myself :p. It occurs during the incident when Butch has second thoughts on leaving Marcellus in the clutches of the two rapists, and so he decided to return to him and extract his revenge while he's at it. It's a clever little thing, heh, so see for yourself. After Butch manages to release himself from his binds and drags himself up the stairs to the ground floor of the pawn shop, you'll notice that he freezes just before walking through the exit, if you didn't know, he's deciding whether to save Marcellus, or escape to Tennessee and retrieve his money. Just [i]where[/i] he freezes, there's a neon sign that says 'Killian's Red' on it and a Tennessee license plate right next to it. On the neon plating, the only lit letters on it are 'Kill ed', and then we're immediately shown a shot of Z's keyring that portrays the letter 'Z'. If you put them all together, it obviously says 'Kill Zed', but, here's the clever bit, if Butch had gone to Tennessee and left Marcellus there, he would have gotten 'kill ed'--just as the broken neon sign said.[/color] [quote name='ReFlux][color=green][size=1]Good example. The breifcase that Jules and Vincent are trying to get to Marsellus in Pulp Fiction. Its leaves those who few who saw it in awe, but it is never revealed. (this has caused many people to beleive that the breifcase holds Marsellus' soul.)[/color'][/size][/quote] [color=teal]Actually, most people think that because of the huge plaster on the back of his head. Reason being that the actor who played Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) had a big scar on the back of his head that the make up artists of Pulp Fiction thought would be too distracting for viewers in his scene with Butch in the bar since you get a total close up of the back of Rhame's head, that's all. The briefcase most certainly doesn't contain his soul though, I can't explain the gold shine effect, but I was thinking something more along the lines of a large quantity of Cocaine or Heroine.[/color]

[color=teal]I haven't seen the film yet, and neither have I seen Pitch Black, but I guess I'd have to get use to Vin Diesel prior to that, heh--he's a poor actor in my eyes. Before anything I'd like to get the chance to have a go at the game that was released for the Xbox that relates to the COR in storyline and other features. Also, an animated version of Riddick is set to be released later in July and will feature Vin Diesel's voice acting. It's called Dark Fury and it basically replicates the plot hole involving Riddick and his attempt to escape from the prison he's being held at. Apparently, it was made to give viewers a bird's eye view of the original film and its casting. The same was done for the Van Helsing movie, even though it was originally a Japanese anime I suppose it proved as a nice little side addition to the overall instalment.[/color]

[color=teal]I have to say that this looks promising, especially that the most part of the game is in third person mode, which will be interesting for an RPG and certainly something to look forward to. Obviously, like most traditional RPGs, the format will return to the old turn based system when you interface with enemies. Little has been said so far about the means of the storyline, but what is known is that instead of Frodo, you'll take control of a Knight of Gondor. I think that's a good way to go about things; it will provide a stepping stone in terms of interaction and engaging and will actually help promote The Third Age to look more of a respectful RPG under the influence of first impressions on the basis of it being a LOTR game, not that it matters. In correlation to what you said about choosing your party's alliance, Serraph-Angel, there is no actual storyline for the evil-missions, they're considered as side-quests if anything, but they lead to special items and goodies that will help you on your quest as a whole, and they happen to play a pretty important role in The Third Age regarding the turn based battle system. I think this game is aimed at two different groups of gamers though. On one hand there's the subsidiary LOTR element that's in it along with all the references used from the film such as weapons, monsters, characters, and props. But on the other hand, the style of The Third Age greatly differs to most of the other American made RPGs; for instance, not being able to customize your character's priorities and characteristics. It's a nice combination of an array of games, I have to admit, and the visuals do resemble the films very much. Personally, I think it will be the eccentric restrictions that pull this game down wherever it may stand.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Uh...no, it didn't. the Predacons had insect and dinosaur forms because they crash-landed in a wasteland area, with nothing for their DNA-scanners to choose from except bugs and fossils. The Maximals landed in a lush area, and had more to choose from. Oh, and one of the main maximals characters was a rat, who, according to your theory, should have been a Predacon.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote] [color=teal]Pretty much the same thing. They were bugs and dinosaurs because the makers wanted them to be bugs and dinosaurs; they thought that they'd suit those roles because of people's stereotypical views upon animals. What you said is probably just an explanation as to why they're in that form. I liked the Transformers more because of the amount of activity involved within it. Seeing Megatron take over an oilwell whilst taking hostages showed how keen he is as a leader, that's probably a quality that may have been shown in Beast Wars, but I don't think it could ever reach the extent that the Tarnsformers took it to, that's true lineage in every way.[/color]

[color=teal]The original Transformers series is the one to watch, all sixteen episodes were as convincing as the other and it's pretty hard to get bored of them because it's [i]all[/i] original, especially the fact that the later episodes were distributed in the form of sagas. When I turn the television on and see Armada, it reminds me of how badly animated series have evolved and have become more westernised. If you look back at the original, you'll see that Megatron was a ruthless leader who strived at nothing than to destroy the Autobots. The same can be said for Optimus Prime, he's a leader who respects his men and is someone that they all can look up to. Those aspects were achieved very well, but the new series lost sight of that somewhere along the way by adding one-liners and short and ineffective fight scenes. If anything, I'd relate the Transformers to Star Wars. The story revolves around nothing but conflict and even if it wasn't as broadly developed as Star Wars, you will receive the basis of the message it's trying to display. Bringing in more characters meant more possibilities for the series that inevitably played in its favour to the lead to Unicron. Beast Wars is a disgrace. It practically parades animals as good or bad in accordance to the nature they live by in wildlife. Shows like the Transformers don't come along anymore, it's a real shame, and anything that tries to reflect their ideas or image from it practically [i]can't[/i] succeed simply because the market is too demanding; they won't listen to what a small section of it has to say.[/color]

[color=teal]Actually, the bulk of the songs I own and have in my archive are foreign, they outnumber my English-spoken songs by a good... 1000. Nowadays, I tend to listen to anything that I think is nice, I couldn't care for the language it's in or the background of the band. Right now I'm into MC*Solaar. Their album 'Cinquieme' has got some really authentic tracks and their single 'Hasta La Vista' has been one of my on going favourites for quite a while now. I've got a thing for Arabic music, too. Even if I have no idea what's being said, the songs themselves are quite pleasant and can easily change the surrounding moods. The most striking though, is any song that's in Spanish/Latin. The language is just so rapid and fast that it's hard to pinpoint a depressing theme or tune in any of them, and the solo guitar pieces are amazingly soothing. So, in a way, they're pretty idealistic.[/color]

[color=teal]At Full Time the score is 1-1. A fair outcome to an exhilarating match-up I'd say, both squads really gave it all they had and neither deserved to have lost. Being a Germany fan myself, I was slightly disappointed with Frings' goal as I was really expecting something far more dramatic from them, but it'll do. In my opinion, the Man of the Match should definitely go to Oliver Kahn. His level of play was brilliant and he put up well with Holland's tough pitbull nature. I wouldn't pity him though, Germany's defence was extremely poor towards the end of the game and almost all of their passes and such were way off. We're going to have to do better than that if we want to stand a chance. Van Nistelroy's goal was very sudden and out of the blue, heh. It was a nice volley that was almost at Holland's 'normal' standard level from close range, and brilliantly held off Worns' challenge and finishing Van der Meyde's low cross from the right touchline. Holland's last chance stood at their final free kick, but Van Hooydonk blew it by blasting the ball well wide as it hit the back wall. Great football as I said before, a cunning performance if anything. I'll be looking forward to Germany's future games, though Holland is a force to be reckoned with. I'd like to see them both make it through to at least the quarterfinals.[/color]

[color=teal]I was reading the thread that Box Hoy made in the Arena and I just thought of something. It would be much more interesting if there was some sort of clan league in the Battle Arena. I feel that'd make it more fun because of the competitiveness it would involve. An idea would be to make the actual League Table a sticky in the Battle Arena, and to run or host either tournaments to win stuff of representative value, or a basic league, or even just plain friendly matches. I'm guessing that the League and tourneys would have to be official though. At the moment it's just a vague description from the top of my head and I really think that with more consideration it could go pretty far. Anyway, I don't know if it's been said before or if it's what James had in mind from the start, but I thought I'd point it out.[/color]

[color=teal]Yes, the movie will be dubbed into English for the US release, unfortunately. It's not the end of the world though, I'm sure that there'll be an option that will allow you to view the film with the original Japanese dialogue, just the way Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon did. Personally, I wouldn't recommend buying it. Don't get me wrong, Zatoichi is far from tentative, it's just the content; I believe you can get your kicks out of it in the same way you would by simply watching any other action orientated anime series.[/color]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Even ignoring that, The Spirits Within did poorly commercially and critically. In fact, I don't think the Square studio that made the film even exists in the same capacity anymore due to the film's failure.[/quote] [color=teal]Yeah, that little studio in Hawaii that they had made solely for The Spirits Within, what a waste. With that included, Square invested just over two hundred million dollars into this movie... with a very poor result of less than fifty million in the Box Office. That led Square into an immense debt. In all honesty, they would have been better off without the damned thing. I think they were urged into making a movie that's actually about Final Fantasy from this bitter experience than some poor spin-off like TSW. Disgraceful.[/color]

[color=teal]I was going to make this thread myself before I saw this one. I'm not really that big a football fan, but I love watching international teams play, I don't know why, there's just something about it. Regarding England's match yesterday, I truly believe that they deserved to win. One little screw up from Beckham wasn't funny, but at the end of the day, it's the team that comes out with the most goals that proves who's better. France won fair and square. The French were actually quite non-existent in the first half. A handful of shots at goal, but then again, how many people can blame them for being wary of England suddenly becoming another Senegal? Eriksson has become the Houllier of international football. Bringing Heskey and Hargreaves on can only mean one thing; more defensive football, which, if the French were more adventurous, could prove to be more disastrous than Iceland's 1-6 defeat. Rooney was terrorising the French defence. As much as they knew about this man, they had no idea how to contain him. If the new boy wonder's passing and off-the-ball running skills mature and improve, he can become an England star far shinier than Beckham. Yet, Eriksson chose defence and the rest has become history. I believe England lacks an inspirational leader on the field, someone who can bring the team together on the pitch and plough through the match. Beckham tried but somehow he does not have the leadership skills of Bryan Robson or Alan Shearer on the pitch. Despite the fact that he plies his trade at a very big club and he is playing at his peak, he contributed very little as the captain. I am not saying that Zizou was an inspirational leader (as opposed to an inspiration for his team), but together with Vieira, they pulled the team together nicely. Unfortunately, I can't think of someone in the entire PL who can be a leader on the pitch for England. Another factor was how Eriksson's squad, except for James and Campbell, were all under the age of thirty. I felt that a big match composure was missing and it was possibly [I]that[/I] that led to silly mistakes made by James and Gerard. Heskey shouldn't be blamed for conceding the free kick though. You can't blame anyone for Zizou's brilliance, and James shouldn't be blamed entirely for conceding the free kick either as I believe that attempt wass not something I consider as easy to save. I want to believe that France are merely slow starters and are being cautious to prevent another repeat of their World Cup outing the last time round because it'll be a real shame to see them leave so early. I'll try to make more updates as the tournament progresses.[/color]

[color=teal]Platformers are like the most ancient of genres; they've been around since the dawn of gaming. But I prefer to think of the original 2D Super Mario Bros. games as a sort of base net that other games of the same genre/type can use as a form of inspiration to produce something better. In my honest opinion, this hasn't been achieved very well. Super Mario 64 followed in its older routes by sticking with the original old school storyline of a kidnapped princess, which I think was the key to its success; that tiny bit of simplicity, and proportion. Super Mario Sunshine more or less adapted the same idea, but tried to enhance it further by making newer additions to it, like FLUDD and various new characters. I think the that everyone deprecated the storyline because it didn't stick to that simplicity we all know and love, there was no scent of it at all. I'm glad that Nintendo had the intention of filling the gap of originality, but it's in that very aspect that gamers are most strict and demanding. However, in SMS you were given to chance to play with the all-new Mario without his FLUDD device as well. The secret cave levels allowed players to experience an old school version of the game whilst actually being in the crisp 3D environment. Maybe it was an obligation for Nintendo to cover that area. I'm pretty much under the impression that they don't want to get rid of the classic attributes that the Mario franchise bares, even with the rising market and its demands. It's a very stubborn approach, I have to admit, but I respect that decision because it's primarily creativity, originality (though not always the case), and fun that people look for in games, those are essential qualities that attract sales. The new generation platformers, unfortunately I've never had the chance to play, but judging from the distinct reviews from each game, it seems to me that they simply dig up feedback from other games in the genre and hope to aspire with such references. That should be a good thing, cheap, but good. I mean, they aren't too deep, neither shallow, practically just right, and after each instalment is released to the series you can almost guarantee that another is already in the making, one that's cohesive and right down to the core playable. How legible a platformer is in total is completely in the hands of the player. If they don't like it, then that shouldn't suggest that know one else does, which the case with most platformers in the genre today.[/color]

[color=teal]I haven't seen too many animes myself since I don't consider that my field, so I haven't had the chance to discover any bad ones--that should be a good thing, right? From what I've seen though, my definite favourite is Samurai X, the Trust and Betrayal series. `hEvN basically retorted what I was going to say about it. It's perfect; short but sweet, has a reasonable and deep storyline, there?s the occasional fight scene, and even romance (if that's what you want to call it). The soundtracks used have been carefully chosen as to add the desired effect to the situation, particularly when Kenshin makes a kill, there is very much that element of remorse within you and you can feel it inside of Kenshin himself. Each and every fight is top-notch; they're realistic to the core and are the best sword duels you'll ever come across in any anime. The tremendous build-ups towards the story are also very cunning. It's amazing how so much was produced from a plot hole that was simply set in and about feudal Japan. What strikes me the most is how the series, which I think is very poor, managed to completely diverge from the OAV. They are completely different in so many ways with the only resembling figures between the two being the characters in name only; they're like different people when compared to their counterparts. Like I said, I'm not an anime person, really. But if I had to choose a poor one, then it would be Ayane's High Kick even though I've never seen it before. Reviews say it sucks badly, most of my friends hate it, and I heard it's around three episodes long. o.O[/color]

[color=teal]I've seen the series and I've got a vague translation of the Saito theme in my head. If you check out[/color] [url=http://www.animeillusion.com/ecouter/mr/rurounikenshin/ost2.php][u]this page[/u][/url] [color=teal]you should be able to find it. I think the one that you're looking for is called 'Hoeru Miburu'.[/color] [color=teal]As for the theme that plays during Kenshin's battle with the brothers, check out[/color] [url=http://www.animeillusion.com/ecouter/mr/rurounikenshinindex.php][u]this site[/u][/url] [color=teal]and run through each album. It won't be listed with the OAV so try to pick out the obvious ones. Hope I helped.[/color]