Charles

As spammish as my reply is going to sound in this context, I have to answer this question the same way I always do (especially on any form of application). I'm a human being. As strange as it sounds, a lot of people forget the humanity we all share beneath whatever ethnic or religious differences that seperate us. I don't mean to sound preachy and there's nothing wrong with sharing ethnic differences with one another (it's how we experience the flavors of the world and combat ignorance). But, my point is that a lot of people are so ethnocentric that they begin to identify themselves as whatever ethnicity they belong to. It's probably why I love this quote from Shakespeare's [i]The Merchant of Venice[/i]. [quote]I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.[/quote]

I've purchased every Guilty Gear title with the exception of Isuka. I've heard that the four player aspect wasn't pulled off well because the game required you to press a button to turn around. That, coupled with the four-player aspect, immediately destroyed my interest. I found Guilty Gear X2 to be a great improvement for the series and all upcoming Guilty Gear titles are looking interesting. I know I'll pick up the PSP version and the new PS2 sequel is looking beautiful. With the lack of new, original, Street Fighter releases over the years, Guilty Gear has really become the premiere 2-D fighting series in the US and is still an example of what can be achieved in 2-D with powerful technology behind it. I wish more people would check it out. Especially at its current price.

[quote name='Generic NPC #3']I'm not that far in it, really, but I think everyone should give this a shot. At least rent it and see if you hate it or not. From a story and style standpoint, it's really on a plane of its own.[/quote] I think everyone should buy it for the same reason they would buy a really good movie or an amazing book. Its storyline is really fun to discuss. Hopefully it won't be slapped with an "Adults Only" rating. Also, to those of you giving Shinji Mikami all the credit, you should know that Suda 51 is responsible for Killer 7. He wrote it and directed it. Mikami was merely an executive producer.

[quote name='Rasetsutaisho']you know... if you know anything about christianity... you know god condones suicide... but... if you sit down and read the bible... you'll see that god kills ppl off all the damn time! even his own son he sacrifices! if the creator of the univers doesnt give a **** for human life why should i? the only ppl who god suposedly cares about are those who live for his sake... and those ppl usualy dont flip out and chose to be suicidal one day...[/quote] You're citing literature as the foundation for your entire argument? You want to use some old doctrine to determine your humanity? Fine. Whatever. If you want to go that route, you'll see that God does everything for a reason. He sacrifices his son to atone for the original sin so that humanity can find salvation. In the book of Job, he sacrifices Job's family and animals to prove a true follower's unwavering faith. He later rewards him. When Kain kills his brother Abel, he's cursed. Overall, the God of the New Testement is portrayed as merciful and compassionate--the complete opposite of your argument. What are you going to do next? Cite movies? "In Armageddon Bruce Willis committed suicide to save the world. If everyone had convinced him not to do it, we would all be dead right now!" [quote]ofcourse im not some christian evangilizer (at least not anymore) but even for thouse with out some sort of faith, if they have a resone for living.. i say let them live... and if they dont like life enough... let them kill themselves off... ofcourse this isnt an absolute rule... i only would say this if the person was absolutely confident and clear of mind that their done with living... most of the suicidal ppl you see actualy have chemical imbalances and cant help it... and in that case i say give them treatment... because when i was in high school little 17 yr old wannabe gothy girls were always trying to kill themselves... it was stupid... i've seen it alot... but whatever i dont really care...[/QUOTE] All right, I don't agree with your posts. I find them naive and juvenile. I don't say that to be mean or rude. I'm just being honest for the sake of my following point. If I were to follow your apathetic reasoning, it would be perfectly fine for me to shoot you in the face because I don't like your argument. God takes lives all the time! Why can't I? I don't have any personal attachment to you. I should just kill you off if that's what I really want. No one should get involved or punish me. You see, if I were to do this, I wouldn't be in my right mind. I wouldn't be a normal functioning member of society. Because I would be choosing to take a life, I would not value life. Just is the case when someone takes their own life. There's obviously a distortion in their mental condition. What if a ten year old girl is being raped by her father, or any close relative for that matter, and she decides that she confides in a counselor, and tells him/her everything, including the fact that she just absolutely doesn't want to live anymore? Are you saying that the right thing to do in this situation would be to accept her desire to die instead of taking the proper steps to correct this problem? You see, suicide isn't always simple teen angst.

The controls aren't clunky. It's impossible for them to be so based on how simplistic the design is. Having said that, I loved the game. I knew I would despite the limited control the players were given over the characters. At first I was concerned that the gameplay would be too detached and the game would be overly cinematic. Although its presentation was extremely cinematic, the gameplay was relatively repetetive and the puzzles poor, I had a good time. The shooting remained fun throughout. The visuals and storyline were interesting enough to keep me wondering what was next. The ending itself was terrific but I found the epilogue confusing. [spoiler]A hybrind of Iwazuru/Kun Lan was the final Heaven Smile? [/spoiler]

Here's how I feel about religion: I believe that each individual should define their own faith based on their experience with life. It's a much more satisfying feeling to derive greater meaning from the people and places around them instead of adopting a pre-existing theology. It's so easy to preach to others and tell them that your religion is what everyone should believe. It's so easy to complacently sit back and accept what others tell you to believe as truth. But, to make your own observations, to be insightful enough to make your own theories based on those observations and be content with holding them valuable to yourself--that's fulfilling. We all have different people and things that are important to us. I personally think it's worth investing our faith and happiness in those things as compared to blindly following some dusty book.

[QUOTE=vegeta rocker]Let me just first say, i think cyber sex is really juvenile and stupid. But i was just wondering if you considered this cheating. I know some people who admit to doing it but they are in relationships. I think it is wrong, i would feel horribly guilty having phone sex with another guy who wasn't my boyfriend. So why is this any diffrent? Opinions Please.[/QUOTE] It's not exactly cheating. Obviously no one is physically engaging in sexual intercourse. However, if someone is doing this while in a relationship, it doesn't exactly bode well for the condition of the relationship. Furthermore, I would consider even something like cyber sex a violation of trust if you're in an exclusive relationship. You're still showing a form of intimacy to someone else. A person shouldn't even have that desire if they truly care about someone. If someone feels the need to engage in this sort of activity while they have a partner, they're probably not seeing the right person. As far as cyber sex itself is concerned, I've never seen the point. Read a dirty magazine, masturbate and get it over with.

[QUOTE=Rasetsutaisho]i still say if anyone wants to kill themselve seriously let them do it... they want it let them have it... ppl just arnt as important as everyone makes them[/QUOTE] [CENTER][IMG]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8608/youlose16kl.gif[/IMG][/CENTER]

A long post! Oh noes!! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that many of you don't seem to understand suicide at all--even those of you who claim to have suicidal friends or relatives. What I see here can be equated to me sitting here and trying to explain the stock market to everyone when I know very little about Wall Street. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the subject of suicide myself. I'm not a psychologist nor am I suicidal. I do, however, have common sense and I will apply it where others have failed to do so. What I see here are people using Heaven and Hell as arguments, claiming that God has a direct role in our daily activities. I think that in and of itself is a mistake considering that this is a very human-oriented problem. We're not puppets exclusively guided by divine entities. If we were then we wouldn't have psychologically complex issues such as suicide to contemplate in the first place, now would we? Although faith can play a positive role in helping individuals overcome suicide by adding a level of meaning and comfort to their lives, I'm sure that the reason they're considering suicide to begin with revolves around real-world issues that must be resolved first. Once you begin to use religion against them, by telling them that they're going to hell, you're converting religion into a negative instrument. I don't like the idea of threatening people with religion to tell them how wrong they are or how obligated they are to continue living based on religious doctrine. It sounds very elitist and preachy. Why don't more people help to improve all aspects of someone's life, introducing the suicidal to the positive, uplifting dimension of faith as a part of achieving that end? Above all else though, I think that the best cure for suicide is intimate, human care. Something less detached. I also see posts, from Amity for example, that label suicidal people as "idiots" or buffoons. What a way to simplify such a serious problem. [quote]If someone wants to be that much of a dolt to consider committing suicide, I say let them. Why? Because it's stupid for wanting to end your life. I may not know that person, or how their life was, what it's like, how it is with them, why they would WANT to commit suicide. But don't you think it's STUPID for wanting to take your own life KNOWING that you don't get a second chance at it? That is pure ignorance. Doing something utterly stupid when knowing what the outcome will be.[/quote] I don't believe that suicide has much to do with sound intelligence or reasoning. Obviously something as severe as a suicidal condition permits me to believe that people suffering from such tendencies aren't in their right minds to begin with. Their ability to make sound judgements is going to be inhibited by their suffering. In any case, you've answered your own question. If I hated my life enough to end it with my own hand, I wouldn't want to come back to begin with. At least, not while I was approaching the act of suicide itself. My theory is a common one, in that I feel that many people are just looking to gain attention through suicide. They feel that their life is missing something--something they don't feel they can ever achieve. Or perhaps they have problems they feel they can't correct through any means other than suicide. Maybe they're mistreated or abused on a daily basis by the ones they should be able to trust the most. Maybe they can't love themselves and they feel that they'll be doing the world a great big favor by ending their lives. Maybe they're experiencing a misery so profound that they just want to die instead of continuining to endure it. My point is that you can't think about suicide as a rational, mentally healthy person and judge people from that perspective because of course you won't understand it. And when you don't understand something, it's easy to call it "stupid." When someone's willing to take their own life, it's anything but idiotic. It's one of the most, tragic, pathetic, and most complex issues we can possibly face as human beings. I don't know, I just guess it disgusts me when people act completely apathetic and say they're not willing to help someone because it's their choice to die. It's not their choice because they're not in the proper mental health to make that choice! Barring anything related to euthanasia, rarely does anyone [i]want[/i] to die. They may [i]believe[/i] they do but, as I said above, they're just missing something from their lives.

Short answer: You're going to be told that you're perfectly welcome to do these things--just on one of countless other message boards on the interweb that feature that variety of "letting loose." Why would people need to relieve tension by posting idiotic messages though? I can think of dozens of better ways. Do something constructive; build a model airplane.

[quote name='Box Hoy']The moderators are doing an awesome job right now. Sure it's been pretty annoying.[/quote] It's not really annoying. They usually close a couple introduction threads a day. I've done it before obviously; it doesn't take long. No one has to visit these threads. So, the complaint that these occasional threads are annoying doesn't hold weight. No one has to click them. [quote]Also, Charles, if the introductory threads we get here at OB aren't very informative, then why not put them somewhere where that doesn't matter?[/quote] Yeah, visit a new member's myOtaku site. Hasn't anyone noticed that myOtaku is essentially a blog integrated into the forums? Let's put two-and-two together here. The spam forum you're suggesting apparently isn't desirable; its concept has been turned down numerous times (even in this very thread). Because, really, you're concerned about new members' first impressions--and yet you want to expose them first to an area that's nothing like the rest of the site? So that they can post like that elsewhere on the boards and cause more problems? This is compared to what? Moderators kindly saying "Welcome to OtakuBoards. We don't allow introduction threads but we encourage you to introduce yourself through various discussions. Thanks for joining the community and have fun. Private message a staff member if you have any questions or concerns." Yes, I'm sure that'll have them running for the hills. lol Having said that, it's obvious that James is one-hundred percent against the idea of introductions for new members. Someone should just think of a creative and feesible way for it to be implemented and I'm sure he'd consider it. Usually when people suggest this idea it's not exactly tailored for the community.

The media, movies, television in general constantly emphasize the importance of sex. I think that's the point of confusion here and why people feel pressured to have sex as quickly as possible. Popular culture pushes the message hard. If you don't have sex, you're not living. In reality though, there's no set age where everyone should lose their virginity. At the end of the day, we all have to answer to ourselves. Everyone leads a different life; everyone has different needs and priorities. We should respect that individuality. But, then again, I'm not really saying anything that hasn't already been said here.

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=blue']And by looking at other new people's threads, new members might pair up or feel more comfortable. People who joined in the month of - say - April 2005 would be the Apr2005 members and easing into OB with other newbies will be easier.Just tossing out ideas.[/COLOR][/quote] But right now no one is really pigeonholed. People just befriend those they find interesting or share something in common with. Say you're enrolled in a new school or hired for a new job; you're not just automatically filtered into a special group of new students or employees to make friends. You meet people and develop bonds based on personality and your experiences together. Also, isn't it kind of boring when you're forced to give an obligatory speech that essentially dissects your personality? The whole concept seems really robotic. Isn't it more natural to learn about a person based on their posting in various discussions as opposed to having them feed you their autobiography in an introduction thread? In any case, most people wouldn't put in that effort to begin with whether they were required to or not; most introduction threads aren't very informative at all--which is a Catch 22 I've always found funny. Ah well, there's no point going on though. An introduction forum has appeared on the forum listing today despite these faults. It seems that Azure is the only member who won't be able to see it though. Tough break!

[quote name='Hiei's #1 Lover']Ok, I can't see if it is alrealy here, but anyway, this game rocks. It is an aracade and X-Box game, it rocks, but it is hard, my bro and me have a tough time with it...[/quote] Back when it was released on the Xbox, it was a full-priced game. The Metal Slug series is great, but there was no way I was buying a single entry (not even the most recent) in the series, for over twenty dollars. Although it's probably dropped in price by now, a compilation would have been more reasonable.

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess']I agree with Tony, the biggest reason for me to buy this game would be the original games, I have dial-up and no Network Adapter, so no online play for me![/quote] I think the biggest reason is the theater mode that Europeans got and the added behind-the-back-camera. The classic overhead viewpoint was the only thing that could be considered a flaw in the original. I wonder how much better or worse it will play. At least it will quiet those who said the engine couldn't run that perspective at a stable frame rate. THE MSX games are certainly nice extras though.

[QUOTE=Generic NPC #3]Good. I'd get this at a lower price for those two games. To me they're the biggest reason to get this. I don't mind the MGS games, but I don't think they really compare to the first two (I've played fan translations). Too bad we won't see any Sean Connery and Einstein based images in the port lol.[/QUOTE] Have you played Metal Gear Solid 3 yet? I don't ask to discredit your opinion or launch into a debate. I know your opinion about stealth games. I'm just curious. lol If you haven't played it at all, I think that you may be pleasantly surprised though. I thought that MGS 3 was a lot like the originals aside from the opening hour. Anyway, hopefully more people will actually buy this now. It's really sad MGS 3 didn't sell better while something like Halo 2 broke records.

[QUOTE=Morpheus]I'd say this will take a significantly shorter amount of time than RE4, considering that they won't have to restart several times to get the gameplay right. I couldn't really care less about this game right now. I don't get the least bit excited from being scared, so I have never enjoyed these games. We'll see how this turns out, though.[/QUOTE] For one thing, I wouldn't be surprised if they scratched the game several times; basically every Resident Evil has seen significant changes during their developmental cycles. For another, if you think that Resident Evil 4's fun factor is solely based on generating scares--then you simply don't have a Gamecube. I'll expect you to revoke your statement when the PS2 version comes out.

[quote name='xaustus']Grandia : or more specifically Grandia 2 (because that's the one i played) anyways since i'm the only one that played it i'll tell you about it. It was alot of fun things that don't really make a difference in most other rpgs like speed and activity really made a difference. You had up to 4 people in your party and usually several enemies on screen so the action was nonstop you had a bar on the bottom of the screen that had three different spaces marked off Standby Action Perform. you selected your attack or action for the turn then according to your speed and activity that determined how fast you reached you attack. also when you looked at an enemy you could tell who they where gonna attack and what attack they where going to use so you could use a critical attack and when they where charging up you could actually stop them from attacking and put them back into the standby phase. Also there where alot of special attacks and mana attacks it was really cool.[/quote] That's it. Close the thread right here. We have a winner. I was reading through this thread and the lack of compliments given to Grandia's battle system have helped me come to one simple conclusion: not enough of you have played Grandia 2. The battle system wasn't overly intricate or sophisticated, but it was fast, fun, and action-packed. It was menu-driven but bordered on real-time. Which, of course made it visually pleasing as well. You would actually see your characters run up and attack an enemy--and stay there. They wouldn't leap across the screen and leap back. If you made two characters attack at the same time, you could set up some cool combos. Had the battles been more difficult, Grandia's encounters would have been perfect. It's definitely worth hunting this one down in the bargain bins. It's extremely enjoyable. I'd say that although overall, Skies of Arcadia is a better game, Grandia's battle system and voice acting propped it up and allowed it to be a legitimate competitor (since the frequent battles were easily the most annoying part of SOA).

I would like to spin bullying into a positive rite of passage; it would make life a lot easier if I beleived that people teased others for their benefit. Unfortunately, I live in the real world. Bullying is an ignorant and obnoxious exercise. People don't bully others to build them up; they do it to build themselves up and reinforce their own egos by making others feel inferior. Or, alternatively, they can't accept that someone is different than them. They're afraid of difference so they exclude people. Bullying doesn't prepare anyone for the real world because a real world job environment is built on cooperation and communication skills. So, bullies are really hurting themselves just as much as they are their victims. They're denying themselves potential friendships. People may laugh at bullies for a time, but inside they never really accept them or respect them because they either fear them, pity them, or both.

I can't believe that no one has posted about Matt Hardy's return. Get with it! So, what's the verdict? Was the entire thing a work (from the start) or not? What do you think?

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess']As far as GTA is concerned, the rating should be fine. It's not like you can actually see the sex happening, etc. Why isn't this issue being brought up with God of War, which has an actual sex mini game?[/quote] You [I]do[/I] see sexual imagery with the "hot coffee" mod that sparked this controversy. I haven't bothered to view the scene but in a discussion I was reading, described the scene. They said it begins with oral sex and moves on to the bed where they have intercourse in various positions in a mini game that allows the player to control the action. Supposedly CJ remains fully clothed while the female is naked. If this description is accurate, then I don't see what the big deal is. How would the above described scene be any worse than the puppet sex scene from [I]Team America[/I]? I'll tell you how: most people won't even see this sexual content. A hacker named Patrick Wildenborg unlocked content that was available on the DVD but not used in the final product. So, unless you own the PC version and alter it by downloading the mod, you're never going to see the scene. The other side of the story, as Rockstar puts it, is that Wildenborg edited the game's source code which would completely remove Rockstar's liability. I find Rockstar's argument a little doubtful though, considering the textures and voice work were all in the game already. But, I digress. This game wasn't meant for children in the first place. When you're going around killing hundreds of people during the course of the main game, stealing cars, and robbing houses, I don't see why a sex-based mini game is such a big deal. It's not like sales are going to be hurt considering almost anyone who's going to bother with this game already has it.

[quote name='Generic NPC #3']From all I've seen that's just an untrue rumor. It doesn't exist in the single player. You can only unlock it for the multiplayer, which you've already done.[/quote] Wow, that's terrible. I'm glad I stuck with the N64 original. It's so strange that they would censor the game more for Xbox in 2005.

You have to beat the game. It'll then be unlocked in the options menu, I believe.

[quote name='Dragonboym2][COLOR=Blue']I'm pleased to see Chris Jerico again. He's been doing some TV recently. He even was on Drew Carry as a wrestler called "The Disaplinarion." It was a funny episode, and I had no idea that Jerico was a musican[/quote] Jericho hasn't really been off of television. I'm sure you're referring to Triple H's cameo on the Drew Carey show as well (which was taped several years ago). Jericho's musical background isn't really a secret either; it's always been embedded in his gimmick. He's also had his band on Raw several times and promoted his CD there. Monster, your post was really interesting to read; I love how you've chronicled the deteriorating title situation. With the exception of the Intercontinental title on Raw and both heavyweight titles, I think it's safe to say that the condition of the various divisions is abysmal. I really miss the heated tag team rivalries we saw when Edge/Christian, The Hardy Boys and The Dudley Boyz were hot. With a lot of the upper card singles wrestlers on Smackdown now, the WWE has really missed a chance to turn Smackdown into a good cruiserweight/tag team division full of the hungrier young guys. It should be noted that Molly Holly wasn't fired though; she asked for her release. As for Charlie Haas, he should be fine. He has a college degree and a background in finance; at one time he worked on Wall Street. So, if wrestling doesn't pan out he has something tangible to fall back on. In a WWE.com interview Jackie said that she was exploring the possibility of going back to school for broadcast journalism. But still, I think it's wrong to let people like this go for the reasons they're doing it. I hope that they keep Maria at least. At first I hated her because she was an idiot. And then the WWE realized she's an idiot and gave her an idiot gimmick. Now she's my favorite WWE diva. What do you guys think of the Kerwin White gimmick, by the way? lol I didn't actually get to see it, as I missed most of Raw this Monday. I've heard it's pretty entertaining but at the same time--WWE really seems to be laying it thick on insulting Hispanics recently, with the Mexicools actually riding a lawnmower to the ring. That's probably one of the more tasteless gimmicks I've ever seen. Hassan's terrorist angle easily tops that though.

The WWE has been very callous lately when it comes to their releases. First they release an injured Matt Hardy for lashing out at Edge and Lita on his own private web space while rewarding the two who actually did something wrong with a push. And now they release a recently married couple (Haas and Gayda) along with a pregnant Dawn Marie. Cutting dedicated workers like the Dudley Boyz (especially Spike) is just foolish. Speaking of Spike, his release along with Chavo's recent trade to Raw, essentially kill what was left of the cruiserweight division on SmackDown. The release of the Dudleys even further deflates the flailing tag division. It's a shame that a lot of these people are out of jobs just so that the WWE can hire half of the useless women in the Diva search and Lesnar, who left the company hanging after they made him a star. In any case, I expect both Val Venis and Tyson Tomko to get the boot soon. Venis is only used to put people over and Tomko has sort of been left in limbo with Christian no longer in the Raw picture. I expect to see guys like Snitskey, Rob Conway, and at least one of The Bashams to be released too. If Rosey and The Hurricane weren't holding the tag team titles I would expect to see their names on that list.