Charles

That would remove the fun from it. I like it when people think of dirty things only to realize at the very end that what they were reading isn't actually the naughty subject matter they were initially picturing, but instead something quite innocent. I want an "oh!" reaction when they realize that there's absolutely no dirty language here. They can then go back and read it another way. I'm intentionally manipulating people in a way--and because of that, I think it's necessary to be absolutely clear in the end regarding what I'm talking about. That's not to say that I hate your initial suggestion or don't find it valuable though. I can definitely see what you're saying and I would apply it to the poem if I didn't have a specific agenda in mind. If I did follow through with your idea, I'd be willing to gamble that most people wouldn't have cats in mind at all, however. lol

[QUOTE=Mitch]I liked the ambiguity throughout the poem. It takes on an obvious sexual meaning, but all at once, it also has its simpler meaning. The last stanza, however, ruins all this: it focuses [i]only[/i] on the simpler meaning and obliterates the sexual meaning in one fell stroke, telling the reader this poem is about cats, and cats only. I think you should keep the ambiguity and the double meaning going. It's already purposefully there, so why destroy it? Other than that, it's written very tightly,your words are chosen well. Great job.[/QUOTE] Thanks. I just thought I should clarify one point though. I'd have to disagree that the last stanza ruins anything because this poem isn't about sex. It's about cats. When I read this poem, I'm reading a poem strictly pertaining to cats. If the reader conjures up any other meaning, well, then that's because they're choosing to do so. lol So, I don't want there to be a double meaning that's up for interpretation. I want it to be very clear to readers what this poem is about.

This is a good "popcorn thread" if there can be such a thing. I find it hilarious. lol References to deep sadness over the issue (which I sincerely hope was only a figure of speech in its context), followed by Sage's overly complex philosophical explication are priceless and deserve praise for the comic relief they so expertly provide within such an otherwise monotonous discussion. This is especially true when you consider the simple reality of the situation to begin with. Obviously this topic has surfaced numerous times in the past and I can promise that it will arise again at some point despite the availability of custom titles. That is because it's common for kids to associate importance or recognition with post counts; it's not such a despairing issue. In fact, unfortunately, it's quite common for posters to be rewarded elsewhere for attaining a higher number of posts. If anything, these topics are positive every now and then because they give the same few people that are obligated to reply to these threads the chance to reinforce just where the priorities of the membership should lie here. So, yeah, a chance to clarify a [B]common misconception [/B] isn't a bad thing. Something like soul-searching shouldn't be involved in this and--and--gosh I just have to stop there before I laugh to the point of tears. lol!

[quote name='ThatOneOddDude']Battling those hydras looks to be a sweet experience. Personally, i think every aspect of this game looks very cool, but there is a single small problem. I saw something on G4 about the game, and aparently there will be the showing of topless girls...[/quote] Where's the problem?

[QUOTE=satan665]Holy overanalysis Batman! Its good to see posts about good games last this long, but do you really think about all this garbage you learned in some class every time you play RE4 or other videogames? Have fun and play.[/QUOTE] [CENTER][IMG]http://img173.exs.cx/img173/5572/shup1tg.gif[/IMG][/CENTER] I honestly don't mind when he references class lessons if he thinks it's going to flesh out his argument more. lol I'd say that it's even more silly to post a disrespectful jab at those who are putting major effort into having a deep discussion even if you don't agree with the tactics being used. If everyone adopted your philosophy, there wouldn't be a need for a forum in the first place because we would all be just playing the games instead of discussing them. And, really, the most enjoyable part about seeing a film or movie is discussing it after it's over. If you want to apply the knowledge you've acquired through class (if it's relevant to the discussion) then I don't see a problem. It's certainly not garbage either. Anyway, welcome to OtakuBoards Final Remix. I liked your post a lot. I think that it is quite a problem that this isn't Leon's first encounter with unnatural enemy threats. Just as it was in past installments of the Resident Evil series. The inclusion of ordinary people was probably one of the aspects I loved most about Resident Evil Outbreak. That, and the constant chase of the monsters. Although the game was underwhelming because of the technical limitations present when playing online, including the lack of voice chat and ridiculous load times (without the hard drive) I thought the idea of fear was more so present than in most other Resident Evil titles. I think that's another advantage that something like Silent Hill or Fatal Frame holds over Resident Evil when discussing characters. They feature apparently helpless individuals stuck in hopeless situations instead of soliders skilled in survival training or whatever.

You knew it was coming. I told you that you were playing a losing hand. [quote]You're exploring a mansion whose inhabitants have died from a lethal toxin released in the building. There were some attempts made to contain the threat (lockdowns), but eventually everyone succumbed. Why wouldn't you be running through empty hallways? For that matter, why wouldn't the lights still be on? I don't think the scientists exactly had a chance to make sure they unplugged the toaster and turned off the oven before they died.[/quote] There's no need to summarize the story. We've both taken numerous writing courses. Consider your audience. :p More importantly, your attempt at wit fails. I understand that the mansion isn't exactly going to be teeming with life. Nor do I see a problem with wandering empty halls to a certain extent. Especially in the right context. Of course there shouldn't be monsters in every room. On the other hand, how scary are those empty halls after you've spent hours re-visiting the same [I]exact[/I] ones backtracking for something mundane like an Eagle's Crest or sheet music? You're not completing interesting puzzles (unless inserting a shied key into a lock with a shield insignia is your idea of difficult) or surviving. You're just enduring repetitive fetch quests through the same boring painted, static backdrops (or looping FMV if we're talking about the remake) again and again. How is that building tension? How is it scary? It's just artificially lengthening the story. As for your toaster comment--well, the scientists sure had enough time to make sure that every door was perfectly closed. All of the beds were neatly made. The furniture was set up just right. The toilets were even flushed. And I'm so sure that a mansion inhabited by scientists would have shotguns and grenade launchers replete with flame rounds. And if so, then why was no effort made to procure such items in a desperate time of need? You can't apply logic to this and hope to succeed at wit. All I'm saying is that it would have been cool if you either had to restore power to the mansion or more of the lights weren't working. Hell, with all those closed doors you would think that more of them would have yielded to dark rooms in which you would have to physically go in and hit a light switch. [quote]Also, I think your point here actually defeats your argument instead of helping it. If Resident Evil were to take place in the darkened, scary, "haunted" mansion (like Silent Hill's areas) it would be relying even more heavily on a cliche...and cliches are bad. Think about it.[/quote] Hahahahahahahahahaha--:takes in deep breath*--hahahahaha! Alex--flesh eating zombies [I]aren't[/I] a cliche'? And, Resident Evil [I]does[/I] supposedly take place in a darkened, scary, "haunted" mansion. Just look at it from the outside in the opening cinematic. lol Resident Evil [I]is[/I] a cliche'. It's supposed to play out like a B-movie. [quote]In RE, you're exploring a well-lit and empty mansion, slowly learning of horrific genetics experiments gone horribly, horribly wrong, and finding very little traces of [i]living[/i] "survivors" anywhere. Instead of finding a "live" scientist in his bedroom (and his journal explains he locked himself inside), you find his walking corpse...and the lights are on.[/quote] In the first game, that angle succeeds somewhat. It's just too bad that you didn't encounter anyone slowly turning into a zombie instead of merely reading about it. Seeing someone undergo the metamorphosis would have been much more frightening than reading a document and having him predictably spring out of the closet at you. I think it would have inserted me into the storyline more had I witnessed the mutating effects of the virus rather than hearing about it off-hand. The degeneration of humanity would have been represented much more efficiently. As it stands, the gameplay isn't affected by the storyline much. You don't lead survivors around in search of a cure who could unpredictably transform at any moment. I could just as easily say that the zombies evolved from wicked frogs and it wouldn't matter. And, as the storyline continues it only gets worse. How frightening is this same exact scenario when it's presented in three successive games? It only grows convoluted and silly. [quote]Maybe it's just me, but I find that to be a far better use of setting than the "OMG the dark is all around me! I can't see!" use of setting in Silent Hill. In some respects, Silent Hill actually [i]more[/i] depends on the cliches. Just consider the use of setting and lighting. RE uses "normal" (I use quotes because of what I explained to you earlier today...PSX graphics and such) lighting, while Silent Hill settles for the cliched "dark and haunted house."[/quote] It's not a haunted house. Have you ever played Silent Hill? It's a form of hell on earth that appears as a desolate town. People are drawn there by fate for things they've done in their past. The premise of Silent Hill 2, for example, is spooky when the main character gets a letter from his dead wife inviting him to Silent Hill. I've never been a huge Silent Hill fan but in terms of gameplay, it's infinitely more spooky than the Resident Evil titles. Feeling your way around pitch black halls, heeding the intense screeching of your radio as your only warning, with only a board in hand is more atmospheric and fear inducing than the situations Resident Evil places you in. Resident Evil, as it stands now, is about nothing but spectacularly gratuitous violence. It's not about the scare anymore--it's about upgrading that grenade launcher and fighting that next screen-filing boss. Whereas, Silent Hill builds atmosphere through psychological hallucinations, sound, environment, lighting, and character. [quote]Charles, we've both taken courses with Denise Gess. Think about what she'd say if you or I opened with "The abandoned mansion we took refuge in was even darker than the stormy night that bellowed outside." We both know she'd take that pen and cross that sentence out.[/quote] So what does this have to do with anything? lol Resident Evil is essentially like that. What would she say if I had my characters spout lines like "You were almost a Jill sandwich!" Or, "Is--this--Chris's---blood?" Almost every line is so bad they're good [I]because[/I] they play off of cliche'd B-movie acting and scripting. Resident Evil embraces B-movie influence--it's where its roots are. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that the series takes itself seriously. [quote]And like I also explained earlier, play any horror game a few times through and you're going to lose that fright effect...including Silent Hill. I find it odd that RE is so heavily criticized for this while the Silent Hill franchise suffers from the same exact problem with repeated playthroughs and it doesn't even get so much as a mention for being just as guilty as RE in that area.[/quote] Here's the problem. Resident Evil doesn't lose its scare-factor after the first playthrough. In the case of the first game and the fourth, they lose their sense of horror [i]during[/i] the first playthrough. Once you've become acquainted with fighting the same weak creatures with over-powered weaponry, there's little to frighten you. Resident Evil 2 through Code Veronica just weren?t' scary at all. I reference Code Veronica's opening cinematic or even the idea of Leon rescuing the president's daughter in the last installment to my aforementioned point that the series has become all about action. [quote]Actually, it does contribute. Shot composition doesn't exclusively refer to what you [i]see[/i]. It also encompasses what you [i]don't[/i] see. It's the viewfinder that filmmakers use. It's the frame for the shot. When you hear something that's coming from somewhere off-camera, you're going to be wondering three things:[/quote] Obscuring the view in Resident Evil isn't effective because you can hear your enemies off-screen. They don't sneak and they're stupid. Even the hunters. If I hear a Hunter plodding around off-screen I can merely switch to the item screen, equip a pistol, fire it to attract him on-screen, and then switch to a powerful weapon to dispatch him. Zombies are slow and their loud moaning gives them away. No worries there. And, if worse comes to worse in either of these scenarios, it's quite easy to just exit the room since your enemies are incapable of following you. [/quote1) What is that?[/quote] Just listen and you'll know. [quote]2) Where is that?[/quote] Fire your gun. They'll come to you. [quote]3) Is it dangerous?/quote] What [i]is[/i] dangerous when you're armed to the gills with grenades and shotgun shells? Especially when most of the enemies you encounter move at a snail's pace. [quote]The tight, constricted camera angle is a technique used in cinema to highten tension, especially the extremely tight shots like you'd find in In Good Company (the film is a perfect example of this).[/quote] But, this isn't a film. It's a video game with static, almost entirely uninteractive backdrops. The shots aren't as tight as what you'd find in a film either so that the game can be playable. You don't see any real emotion on your character and the view isn't constricted to mostly just the character as it would be in a film. In horror movies, at least the characters show a sense of fear too. Even in Resident Evil 4 there's none of that. Leon gets attacked with an axe and he sees carnage ensuing outside the cabin so he mutters "****." Oh boy. Also, unlike a horror film, healing items are in healthy distribution so you're allowed to be reckless to a certain extent. Lastly, the obscured camera angles weren't effective from a gameplay standpoint which is why Capcom did away with them in the first place. They pretty much annoyed people instead of scaring them, since unlike in a film, people had to control the characters through the disorienting scene changes. [quote]And you can find tight shots like this throughout the games (or shots that function like this), even in the opening camera angle to the first RE game. It's a high-angle shot that heightens the emotional impact of the game, because it establishes the scale and mood for the game, one of isolation in a larger, alien environment that is devoid of life.[/quote] And then you start playing, and it becomes annoying. lol Also, I refer to you to the concrete point that you're overpowered and the monsters are inadequate at best. That defeats your point entirely. In a horror film someone dies if their throat is ripped out by a zombie. In Resident Evil, you merely have to use a mixed red and green herb compound. If more enemy attacks had a finality to them, as the chainsaw lunatic does in Resident Evil 4, and should the enemies be capable of following you from room-to-room, the camera angles could have been somewhat effective. [quote]Similarly, in RE2, when you're about to encounter the Licker, there's one shot that peers in through the window as you enter the room. Consider that you don't get that camera angle when you walk back to the door. There's a reason for that. The Licker isn't looking at you anymore.[/quote] It's a fairly cool scene but it sort of contradicts the theme of your argument since the situation is so cliché' itself. Many movies have used this technique in the past, such as the [I]Jaws[/I] films, for example. [quote]There's an incredible attention to detail when it comes to placing those camera angles. It's not arbitrary, and it's not a plot device.[/quote] And it's not scary. It also makes the gamer feel removed from the experience which is something I'm surprised you've ignored. You keep referring to the Resident Evil games in terms of films but video games are supposed to engross the player and immerse them into the experience. Video games are supposed to make you feel like you're the center of the action, like you're really there. Horror films typically don't do that and neither did the Resident Evil games when they used fixed camera angles. That was a problem that was detrimental to the scare factor. [quote]And just so this also bears relevance to RE4...think about how the camera behaves. Think about how the game is presented. Widescreen. Panoramic. Even when you're fending off the villagers, think about when you hear something behind you.[/quote] Haha, I'm the one that brought this up to you in class! Indeed the camera is much more effective at immersing the player into the experience. I won't deny that. And, the game is somewhat frightening. But, when you're ten hours in (the typical time a Resident Evil title ends mind you) and you've battled off legions of the same enemies over and over again, it's just not going to hold the same appeal as it did in the opening hours. It's still extremely fun but it's not frightening. [quote]They could have stuck with pre-established camera angles, or even created a camera system that functions more akin to Devil May Cry, in that you can see everything around you...but they didn't. Why?[/quote] See above. I'm not arguing against Resident Evil 4's camera. I've told you as much personally and you're not using my same exact words to argue against me for some reason. lol [quote]Because they wanted a very particular type of framing, one that gave you a very specific viewfinder. So when you're fighting villagers, you're still seeing it in a frame, a more fluid one, but still a frame. It is shot composition...no matter where you are in the game, no matter what you're doing...it's still shot composition.[/quote] Again, you're wasting your time. I have no qualms with the camera. [quote]Like I explained earlier today, now you see why I'm bringing cinema (and pacing techniques of cinema like those of Alien and Hitchcock) into this discussion: because it's utterly, entirely, and undeniably relevant. The RE franchise are cinematic games, and like I'm explaining to AzureWolf, who [i]still[/i] denies the link, and who [i]still[/i] outright [i]refuses[/i] to consider the point, because RE4 [i]is[/i] a playable film, we need to consider it in cinematic terms, which I've been doing very steadily and consistently through this thread.[/quote] It's obvious that the Resident Evil titles are heavily influenced by film. Mikami has reiterated that in countless interviews. This approach has both its positive and negative effects. Resident Evil 4 has started to capitalize more on the positive while still allowing the game to be just that, a video game that immerses the player instead of making them feel removed. Hopefully subsequent releases will continue the trend. [quote]How about the eerie calm as the sea creature submerges and prepares to charge at you from a different direction each time?[/quote] The calm only lasts for about five seconds. lol [quote]Sound has everything to do with it. You don't hear silence or low, moan-like strings in DMC. You hear rock music with gothic overtones, sometimes a bit muted./quote] That's because DMC isn't about survival. It's not about surviving from one section to the next. It's about being invincible, kicking ***, and looking cool while doing it. I don't see why DMC even has to enter the discussion to this extent. Sound is just a minor component of that. In the first [I]Devil May Cry[/I] there were occasional bouts of silence, or soft, horror-type music. Again though, the key difference between the games is the maneuverability of Dante and the fast pacing of the game. [quote]And again, that's my point. Dante is so overpowered that nothing stands up against him. Virtually everything that the game throws at you can be defeated in a few sword swipes. This is not the case with RE4...because even your most powerful weapons only have KD power, like I explained earlier today.[/quote] Play Devil May Cry 3. [quote]You forgot to add "you crazy Dutch bastard."[/quote] :catgirl: [quote]But even those high-powered weapons still do not guarantee 1-hit kills (the rocket launcher is the only exception, and then the secret weapons after you beat the game a few times), only KD. When there is an opportunity for a 1-hit kill, they are very particular circumstances.[/quote] They may not guarantee 1-hit kills but they're sure effective at combating the enemies to the point where they're helpless, lying on the ground as easy targets. [quote]Like I explained earlier to you, Flash grenades weren't in your Inventory, and they take up room. And remember the usefulness of the Flashes. The headshot tentacle creatures (however many there are in a room) die with one Flash grenade.[/quote] Doesn't this support my argument that Leon is overpowered and contradict yours? [quote]Now you see why I'm not running around with every weapon in the game. Because the Flash grenades are probably the best grenade in the game, because they're so potent against what is undeniably one of the deadlier enemies in the game.[/quote] Then what is there to be afraid of? [quote]I would actually say that sound is effective to the scare factor of the game. The most obvious example is the fights with the prisoners. If you make noise, they will start swiping. I think it's one of the best uses of sound I've seen in a long time, because you have to resist every urge to run-n-gun, because if you do, the enemy will attack. Otherwise, they more or less meander about. Perfect example of how sound builds tension--both silence and sound, come to think of it.[/quote] The sound is effective because it borrows heavily from Silent Hill for its soundtrack. I also loved the ramblings of the villagers until I heard the same clips from them over and over again. I'll say that initially the sound plays an important role, and continues to make the game atmospheric throughout, but doesn't build fear on the same level as the games I mentioned in my previous post, Eternal Darkness and Silent Hill. [quote]Coughing up blood. "Eggs have begun to hatch." Regenerators. Village Chief. Salazar (in human form). I'd think the game certainly has more than one or two disturbing and unsettling moments, and far more than AzureWolf is claiming.[/QUOTE] I agree with you. Even when combating the villagers becomes stale from an emotional perspective, there are numerous moments that prevent the game from becoming boring or completely unscary. I think what we have here is AzureWolf completely understating the impact of fear in the game while you have a tendency overstate it.

[quote name='Hevn][COLOR=Purple][SIZE=1]Wonderful! I love pussies too! *snuffles them*[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] Somehow I knew it all along.

I never write odes. I looked up the rhyme scheme and form on a web site so I'm not sure how accurate it is. Anyway, here's what I have. lol [B][u]An Ode to Pussy[/u][/B] As I gaze into your almond-shaped eyes Their emerald hue enforces attention Culling sympathy you release soft cries A lucid script--yet beyond comprehension I admit, fair pussy, you are my weakness I cannot stay faithful--I love all kinds Short-haired or silky, I?ll stroke the fine texture I dote on minimal grooming but also sleakness Woe to us who can?t get pussy off our minds Firm, muscular, tender, O? what architecture! Some pussies are unclean, like strays These should be treated with much alarm! What looks inviting is mean--what deceptive ways! Don?t nuzzle a dirty pussy, they can do only harm! But, to see milk drip from thine supple lips is sweet rapture A world without you rubbing against my leg Is one that cannot keep my attention erect You gild mischief--evidenced by the balls you capture! Unlike my other pets, you refuse to beg You are quite regal, I your loyal subject. Sometimes when you climb atop my lap And whisper contently upon my knee I speak gentle words, we cuddle and nap I fall to you and you to me Some say pussy should be eaten The drum my senses hear cries outright One should whet their appetites elsewhere please Pussies are fine creatures, but I?ll take my meat beaten Spare cats, eat turkey if you prefer your meat white Be kind to all pussy--Persian, Calico, or Siamese.

[quote]AW, I hardly think "BOO!" is an apt description for RE4 and the franchise as a whole. There are moments of that type of terror (RE1 and the dogs through the windows, for example), but there are long hallways throughout the game with very sparse music (sometimes a long and low string instrument, or a bass).[/quote] This is true to some extent. Unfortunately, those long empty halls rarely built tension and were merely a segue to the cheap, scripted scares that the Resident Evil series has been notorious for. Generally, the player was forced to wander empty halls after eliminating all of the enemies merely because they had to backtrack and retrieve some obscure item for the purpose of completing an asinine puzzle. If the games were pacing towards boredom, then they succeeded quite well. It's not as if enemies could spontaneously surprise you at any time. In [I]Silent Hill[/I], you find yourself wandering pitch-black halls with a flashlight. You never know what's going to come out at you. In Resident Evil, you explore well-lit empty halls, and after you play through the game once, you know exactly when that dog is going to jump through that window or when that zombie is going to bust a door down. Those are "Boo" moments, my friend. You're not scared. You're not helpless. You jump because a loud noise suddenly broke the half hour you just spent arranging some stupid paintings. [quote]Classifying the RE games as only a "jump out and scare you" franchise is asinine, because building tension and atmosphere through setting, shot composition, sound design, and overall art direction is one of the things the series is known for--and RE4 is no exception. RE4 is more action-oriented than previous titles, yes, but that doesn't diminish the slow build-up of tension at all.[/quote] Actually shot composition rarely contributed to the fear when you could [B]hear[/B] the zombies groaning nearby. And how the hell is there a slow build-up of tension? Within the first thirty seconds you're fighting off a mob of enemies and it continues that pace throughout. [quote]RE4 is certainly a more subtle type of horror, because it relies more on the build-up and pacing rather than having things jump out at you. Some of the most effective moments in the game (and in the franchise itself) are when nothing is remotely close to you. The hallways are examples of this, and the village in RE4 is another. Certainly, one cannot deny the tension one feels when finding oneself in an eerie calm on the lake during the sea creature fight.[/quote] Oh, do you mean the eerie calm that happens directly after you see said monster emerge and devour a corpse? I sure didn't anticipate it attacking me seconds later. lol [quote]The use of sound alone is what differentiates the RE games from the typical, dumbed-down, "oooh scary monsters just appeared" Devil May Cry type of formula.[/quote] No, sound has nothing to do with it. [I]Devil May Cry[/I] is just a different style of action game. The fact that Leon isn't nearly as maneuverable or overpowered as Dante is the key difference. The point of Devil May Cry is pulling off stylish combos. Resident Evil 4's purpose is survival. That's all there is to it. [quote name='Siren]AW, if you didn't find RE4 unsettling at all, then that's not indicative of something wrong with the game. That's indicative of something wrong with you. To anyone who is remotely open to the idea of [i]pacing[/i] (as opposed to Silent Hill, which is purely constant and tangible dread), the tension-building and suspense merits of RE4 are very real. The franchise is about [i]pacing[/i]. The Boo moments are included in that, just like the moments of silence are included in that, but [i]without[/i'] silence, you have nothing but explosions (nothing but DMC). Take a few courses in film studies, AW, and really pay attention to techniques of sound design.[/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://img220.exs.cx/img220/6995/1404737excel39yk.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] Um, HOW ABOUT [I]NO![/I] I'd say that Resident Evil 4 definitely has a pacing curve--but it leads [I]away[/I] from generating scares throughout. That's not to say that there aren't moments of suspense or tension. It would be utterly ludicrous to undertake that argument. However, the general pacing of the game is one of action and brutality. As Leon moves through the game he acquires a heavy arsenal that could wipe out a small army. Nearly every room overflows with legions of antagonists whose remains dissolve into copious amounts of ammunition. There are moments when an unseen enemy will lunge at Leon, instigating a startle effect, but the general theme of Resident Evil 4 seems to be balls-to-walls, thrilling, non-stop excitement. It's all about gratuitous, brutal, spectacular violence. Otherwise, Leon would remain as helpless as he is at the outset of the game. There are rarely moments of foreboding violence. The only tension that exists stems from the game's frantic pacing. Furthermore, the entire last portion of the game plays out exactly like an action movie. I reference the [spoiler]chopper portion[/spoiler] as a clear example. And, although Resident Evil 4 has terrific sound, I wouldn't say that it lends effectively to the game's scare factor. The moments of silence don't last nearly long enough to achieve that affect. The soundtrack does admittedly borrow heavily from [I]Silent Hill[/I], which is obviously a positive quality, but unlike that aforementioned title, Resident Evil 4 never forces you to listen to it. It's mostly subdued under the sounds of heavy gunfire. I can't say that Capcom uses audio in this title to induce psychological scares either. Especially after playing through [I]Silent Hill[/I] and [I]Eternal Darkness[/I]. That is, Resident Evil 4 doesn't use audio cues to play tricks on the player or flare paranoia--it's very straightforward just like the action onscreen. [quote]"I have a powerful character. Therefore, I can't be scared." Just like "I have a flamethrower; therefore, the alien can't frighten me." That's what you're saying here, AW, and that's utterly false logic. Just because you have a [i][b]Shotgun[/b][/i] (yes, I'm being obvious here) doesn't mean being out in the middle of the woods in the dead of night is going to be comfortable on any level at all. And if you're that one person who wouldn't be frightened at all, you're lying.[/quote] Your logic here is self-defeating and faulty. Consider for a moment, the implications of traveling through a stark, wooded area with only a combat knife and pistol combination in hand, while being pursued by overwhelmingly powerful foes. Now, compare that scenario to the situation Leon is placed in: he's equipped with a bevy of ridiculously over-powered weapons that only increase in their effectiveness as his mission progresses [I]and [/I] he has an assortment of insanely useful healing items at his disposal. Factor in his powerful hand-to-hand abilities that [B]easily[/B] cause an enemy's head to explode--and you ain't got scary. [quote]It doesn't need to try, because it does have very genuine disturbing sequences. How about the very first FMV when you enter the village? A police officer burned at the stake? You're telling me that wasn't the least bit unsettling?[/quote] It's disturbing to be sure. Leon is relatively helpless at this point. But, the game definitely doesn't continue that trend. You can't use the first ten minutes of the game to build a solid argument that holds up for a twenty hour experience. [CENTER][IMG]http://img.infoplease.com/images/atomicbm.gif[/IMG][/CENTER]

[quote name='Sepiroth']I do, I think of my dog Buttons as my little sister. Whenever people ask me if I have a pet dog i say no. And when they come over and see my dog they ask why I lied and then I tell them that is my little sister. I love her so much she never has been treated like a pet. When I am home alone and I am eating, I put her food bowl on the table and she sits in the chair and eats next to me, that is how special she is. I tell people if they ever lay a harming hand on Buttons that I will kill them, because I will.[/quote] I love my pets and consider them a part of the family but not to that extreme. That is, I consider them family pets--they're a part of the family in a different way than an actual person is. I definitely wouldn't classify my dog or cat as a brother or a sister, for example. They're not human; it's important to make that distinction for sanity's sake. lol Eating with an animal at the table is poor hygiene and demonstrates a lack of class. I hope that you break out of that habit or people will find you creepy and disgusting.

[QUOTE=Syk3]Hold up, now, Charles. The first day of April? EGM? Tell me you checked up on this claim elsewhere. lol The whole thing is just so wild to believe in the first place.[/QUOTE] Haha. I wanted to at least get a discussion going for a little while. I was debating on whether or to include the subtle EGM allusion. Probably shouldn't have. :animesmil You know, it has me tempted to at least call Gamespot though to confirm this. It's not as if it's such a hard April Fool's joke to test, unlike their old Resident Evil 2 Akuma joke.

Has anyone else heard about the preorder deal for this game beginning the first day of April, in which those who put ten dollars down will receive a bonus disc that features a visually remade version of [I]The Wind Waker[/I]? The engine has been converted to the new, "serious" style. According to EGM, it will also include two full-length dungeons that were cut from the original. On the positive side, I'm anxious to go through the dungeons because I felt that the original game was quite short. Also, I'm sure that many gamers will "eat crow" once they give the game a chance now that it has adopted their precious conventional style. They'll realize what they've been ignoring all along is a truly awesome Zelda game underneath its childish surface. However, judging from the screen shot that I've seen, I think the visuals look somewhat ugly and significantly out of place in this context. I wonder how particularly cartoony characters, such as Tingle, will fair in the conversion. The light-hearted, and vibrant art style was just so imbedded in everything from the dungeons to the ocean itself. It's hard to imagine everything in a bleaker coat of paint. Plus, by making such a move, it's as if Nintendo is further admitting that they had made a mistake in choosing [I]The Wind Waker's[/I] artistic direction and are now trying to make amends for it. Ah well, it's a cool extra to say the least, but it also annoys me somewhat.

[QUOTE=Syk3]Ah, yeah, my friend used to have this game. Maybe he still does, I'm not sure; I haven't played it in years. I do recall that I had fun while it lasted, though, but my memory is horrible and I don't remember too much about it. :p Wasn't there another name for it, I think for a game that was released on Dreamcast?[/QUOTE] The sequal to Rival Schools for Dreamcast was awesome. I disliked Rival Schools immensely because it reminded me of a cookie-cutter Street Fighter EX clone--which was itself a stale, mediocre fighter. You know, these games didn't feel like an extension of the player in the same way that their two-dimensional Capcom brethren did. The gameplay felt sluggish and awkward. But, yes, I was pleasantly surprised by Project Justice on the Dreamcast. It was a lot more enjoyable. The action was more responsive, fun, and flashy. If memory serves me correctly, it felt a lot like Tekken Tag Tournament--only on a more simple scale. So, while it still didn't re-invent the wheel, so to speak, it was a definite improvement and a gem worth searching out if you're a big fan of Rival Schools.

I started skating last week. I'm terrible at it right now, but that's to be expected. Regardless, I've made nice progress on the basics. I'm going to continue building my comfort level and ability to maneuver the board naturally before I even bother with the most simplistic of tricks. I'm not skating with the goal of becoming fantastic in mind; it's just a nice bit of exercise that I find enjoyable. Today I'm going to purchase a board suitable to my size (since the rental boards are decidedly terrible). That should help ease my comfort level and help me make further progress.

It seems as if this issue has been drudged over so much that the very people initiating the debate itself are the ones hyping Halo more than anyone. There are dozens of mainstream titles that are over-exposed in the gaming media every year. Halo is no special exception; I don't see why people put such a big emphasis on it.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1]In direct reply to your first post Charles, you have a point [and a good one'] but it is invalid. Sure, this thread could head in a different, more serious, and more practical direction, but I don't think anyone here is well enough acquainted with many people to judge how useful they'd be in such a situation. I don't know the height to weight to body fat to muscle ratio of anyone else on OB, and as people on an internet forum, I couldn't really care. I don't know how many of them have been in isolated drops, or been in Scouts, or been camping. And I don't care.[/size][/quote] Of course I'm not insisting that you have to have a meticulous knowledge of your choices. But, certain easily obtainable facts and logic should be considered such as the infant issue discussed earlier, for example. Or the aforementioned society which had a gross imbalance between men and women. Things like age are usually within reach and resources like Queen Asuka's picture archive could be rather useful for physical attributes. Furthermore, it's safe to say that each member has a general knowledge of their friends and what abilities they possess that may be useful. I didn't intend to suggest that everyone should do careful research on others here but at the same time, seeing replies based solely on trivial reasoning is frustrating. I wouldn't bring Semjaza Azazel just because he posts well in the Play It forum or Drix because he can debate well, for example.

[CENTER][IMG]http://img233.exs.cx/img233/3193/bec20surprised9mt.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] What's this? The other Valentine's Day thread just called! It says to post in there.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']You also have to remember we're talking about a series whose first (and subsequent remake) game's "best" ending was flying off in a helicopter with your teammate. [/quote] Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned how the previous Resident Evil's had poor endings as well. But, even then that was 1997 and at least there were about six multiple variations of that ending.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] Hey Charels? even though Abby isn't even old enough to [i]sit up on her own[/i] let alone use a computer. Can I pick her? [/color][/QUOTE] You see, that's an interesting point to ponder. Seriously. Of course you don't want to be divided from your child for an indefinite amount of time. So, when choosing castaways you should consider the burden an infant would present in this scenario. It would surely be an extra (and incredibly big) responsibility for everyone within the group to consider. You?re bringing a person who will only receive and make zero contributions. I went over an exercise similar to this discussion in a persuasive writing class about a year ago where we were only able to choose from a short list of people to place on an island. Both the mother and daughter were separate choices. We had to consider the issue of separating a mother from her infant. Would it be best to bring them both and deal with the responsibility of raising an extremely vulnerable person in a hostile situation? Or could the mother alone be a productive member of the society bearing the heavy psychological complications of separating her from her newborn child? Now, bearing that in mind, only you can answer your question.

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']Charles- while your personal opinion usually means little to me, I feel you have hit the nail directly on the head. My rebelliousness might cause problems, but it could also cause creativity and new ideas. However since you seem to have personal experience with surviving on deserted islands and exactly what is needed to survive physically, mentally and emotionally, I submit to your greater opinion. I hope that from this I can move on to understand the complexities of survival on desert islands, following your example.[/color][/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://img202.exs.cx/img202/3920/crybaby5iw.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] And, while I usually don't waste my time expressing said personal opinion on you, I feel that this little exchange was rather productive and sincerely thank you for taking the time to participate. I also admire your rhetoric. Your strategy of patronizing me and making me look like an elitist was not only quite creative but conducive to my original point. :rolleyes: However, I've only flattered you with a mention as a matter of convenience. Because I was already aware of your age range I was able to insert your name without looking at profile pages. So keep in mind that there was nothing [I]personal[/I] at all intended with the post. Your name was just a footnote for a bigger and more important point. I think it's great though how you made a post saying you weren't being sarcastic only to delete it and create another one even more sarcasm-ridden. Great stuff, sport. I do support the idea you expressed in the deleted post that we continue the discussion elsewhere if we must--but that's something I have no desire to do as I feel that it's just getting silly now. Because you're interested in bringing up my island background though, I'll have you know that not only have I watched every episode of Gilligan's Island Island but I've also vacationed in Jamaica as well. And then again, I never suggested that people should pick me either, did I? So, I'm not quite sure what the relevance is of your bringing it up at all.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]Hm? Ah, Charles! Yes, yes, a valid point. Being stranded on a desert island with death and isolation staring me in the face I would be so inclined to just rebel, you know? It's so hard to *not* rebel, even facing starvation and such a horrendous situation. Look at the masses! They are so.. so.. MASSED TOGETHER~! All those little figureheads of authority, I POO ON THEM HEAVILY! It just angers my brain! Rebel, my friends! Rebel with all of your might! *takes an ironically large amount of similarly minded non-conformists and destroys the island* Might I suggest you take the time out of your schedule to get to know me before you say that, hm? I'm fairly certain that I am actually a few months out of that stage. I mean, I could be wrong of course. But, as of right now, I have a certain inclination that I just might be over that. Let's pray that I am, yes? *shakes his head*[/color][/QUOTE] I don't know you personally, but it's safe to say that I've witnessed enough of your personality traits to draw the conclusion that like many teenage boys, you could be quite difficult and inefficient to deal with in such a situation. Look how easily I've riled you up into a storm of sarcasm here. In a situation such as the one being introduced in this thread, my personal [I]opinion [/I] (given your age and personality) is that you'd clash with people quite easily [I]because[/I] of the stressful conditions that you listed in an effort to satire what I said. Those obstacles wouldn't aid your behavior or make you easy to deal with--they'd be detrimental to it. Even if it is a small society, an organizational approach would have to be taken, leadership would arise, and if you disagreed with what you were being told to do it would be in your very nature to raise a fuss about it. And yes, the very fact that you would use a phrase like "POO ON THEM HEAVILY" further justifies you as an example here.

What did you guys think of the ending? OtakuSennen's post is a good catalyst for discussing that issue. [spoiler]I thought that it was extremely disappointing personally. We've addressed the fact that this is easily the longest, most difficult Resident Evil title in the series. It's much more epic in scale than previous installments when you consider the size of the environments, the boss characters, and the sheer scale of the combat situations you're placed in. It's also more cinematic than past Resident Evil's (when you take into account the interactive cut scenes) which were heavily cinematic to begin games with. Furthermore, people kept stressing the raised quality in voice acting and direction. Yet, the game's ending probably lasted between twenty and thirty seconds. I understand that the true reward in Resident Evil 4 is its replayabliity and that few of the games have had rewarding conclusions. But, did any of you feel let down as well? The resolution, if you can call it that, felt insignificant. Nothing satisfying really happened. The ending (the completed form counting Agent Ada) only served as a segue into old territory by re-establishing Umbrella and Wesker. Leon's standalone ending just sees him ride into the sunset with Ashley after rejecting her advances. I didn't find it as ambitious as the rest of the product. What do you think? Did it get the job done?[/spoiler]

I?m going to make an inquiry before I bother replying to this thread. How is it any different from the countless ?[B]Which OtakuBoards member would you like to meet in real life[/B]? threads we?ve endured? This just seems like the same popularity contest we?ve seen countless times over with different dressing. On one hand it?s a good opportunity to try something new. People could put some real thought into their posts and instead of just listing their normal friends or using this opportunity to kiss ***, they could take into account gender, age, ethnicity, religious differences, health, physical prowess/size, foraging, hunting and organizational skills to put together a convincingly capable society. Ask yourselves how your chances of survival will be affected by how you?re constructing your society. Annie?s, for example, would perish because it?s male-dominated; reproduction would be inefficient. The ratio of men to women is incredibly imbalanced. Due to women being such a limited resource for reproduction, wouldn't competition among males rise, perhaps resulting in violence? Others choose young members who probably wouldn?t be able to cope with the psychological stress of being separated from their families, let alone possess the wherewithal necessary to survive independently in the wild. Would Ken, for example, be a good choice considering that he?s in the rebellious stage of his teenage years? Does [I]Lord of the Flies [/I] ring a bell for anyone? lol Yeah, I just see the same clichéd responses that are the norm for popularity threads here. No one puts real thought into the fact that they?ve never met most of their choices. No one considers the fact that they may not be comfortable in an environment of raw isolation with strangers they?ve only talked to through the Internet or on the phone. They just want to be ?cute? with these thoughtless responses that in no way consider the question seriously. I?ll give ChibiHorsewoman a nod of credit for at least considering certain [b]serious[/b] advantages individual members possess, such as her husband?s basic training. But, on the other hand how would the couple cope with the despair of being separated from their newborn child? Would they be psychologically fit under the circumstances to pull together with a small community and survive? Also, just because Drix is able to debate proficiently, does that mean he?s capable of building a boat with minimal tools and supplies? I?m not saying he couldn?t--but his ability to debate is not sufficient evidence to prove so. If she had chosen him due to some knowledge in say, treating injuries or something of that nature, it would have been more of a valid choice. The reasoning in her choices just grow weaker from there--which is the level of quality thought or lack thereof that I?m seeing from everyone else. Also, a description of the island would be helpful too. If it's tropical, for example, I wouldnt' choose to bring someone from a colder northern climate. Instead of people completely ignoring me, or taking the easy scapegoat and telling me I?ve put ?too much thought into this? and need to ?lighten up,? I think it?d be cool if they started investing some real creativity into their responses. Perhaps that?s just wishful thinking though. [CENTER][IMG]http://img219.exs.cx/img219/7503/inconceivable3qs.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] *signing my post as if I'm writing a formal letter or something and you didn't already know who I was* --Charles

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Hey, if we could make things excplode on Valentines day it would make it better for me.... Actually I find Memorial day very romantic. [B]And getting caught in the rain... Chibi Horsewoman[/B][/color][/QUOTE] Not [I]you[/I] too. I'm going to kill myself now. [quote name='Yume Tenshi']I don't care who the hell you but you should shut the hell up right now. :D[/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://falcon.tp.devry.edu/~tmcn9298/banme.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] Clean up your act please. I don't know if you were being playful or sarcastic but your post was completely inappropriate and out of line. Put more effort into constructing your posts in a legible manner as well. I suggest you read our rules; it's important to express your thoughts clearly--and it's important that your thoughts are pertinent. If not, well, I'll have to help you aboard the banned wagon. [QUOTE=Siren]You know, it irks me to no end when people minimize various holidays because they've gotten so commercialized. Give me a break. So you can't go anywhere in any story without seeing a V-Day balloon or a heart or a box of chocolates. Big fricking deal. That doesn't make the day any less special, because like Sara has said, it's about what you make it. Oh, oh my god...CVS has entire walls lined with red, white and pink teddy bears! Damn you commercialism, DAMN YOU! Damn this day to hell and all those who participate in the madness, supporting the soul-less money-grubbing capitalist pig-dogs![/quote] That's a [I]terrible[/I], short-sighted view I wouldn't have expected you to take. I'm taken aback. You're ignoring the primary criticism of over-commercializing the holiday. The point is that it's silly to promote the idea that people should lavish their loved ones with gifts on a designated day. Aisles of sweets and balloons aren't the focus of intelligent criticism's attributed to Valentine's Day. They don't detract from the holiday. On the contrary,[I] the holiday itself [/I] is transparent and silly. If you love someone and cherish their companionship, you should show them on a daily basis. Placing importance on one day out of the year where people must put a price tag on their love is more of a hindrance in my opinion. It's obvious that Valentine's Day is a very superficial holiday, make no mistake about it. Valentine's Day can be positive in that it can help people establish new relationships. I'm not completely against it; I just don't think it should be used to celebrate existing ones since, like Christmas, it becomes more about the gifts themselves than loved ones spending time together. If anything, it detracts from happiness between a couple because people are being forced to buy gifts, there's no surprise or consideration involved. It just seems hollow to me.

The fact that I raise large cocks-for people to ride--makes this one of the better random-themed fiction stories to grace this forum. It's also nice that although many ideas are being thrown around at once, your sentences are very crisp, clear, and concise.