James

[color=#B0251E]I don't know, I can only speak for my own community. I honestly haven't noticed changing attitudes toward violence and so on. Where I live, people are still as outraged and people are still as willing to help you when you're down -- I honestly haven't noticed some giant apathetic trend. Not to say that this hasn't or isn't happening elsewhere. But in my own life experience, it hasn't been happening. Of course, some things have become bigger problems in recent years. Drug use is an issue, for example. However, I don't tend to view that in the context of "the world is slowly going to hell" -- rather, I view it as one trend. Some trends are getting worse, some better. It's always a state of flux, as far as I'm concerned. But in general - in a broad sense - I think society is always on the incline. Standards tend to rise (living standards, wages, standards of tolerance) and that in turn is often triggered by better education and work conditions. I think it's a cycle that tends to be self-perpetuating. As people become less ignorant and more educated, as they live longer, as they become more financially stable, things tend to improve for everyone. Of course there are people who fall by the wayside, but remember that I'm only talking about society in a very general sense. There are (and always will be) elements of society that are still having problems or that are going in the wrong direction.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Yeah, I'm kinda thinking "what moral decay"? You mean, now that women don't have to live at home and be beaten while their husbands enjoy immunity? Children can no longer be abused in as much silence as during the 50's? Women aren't giving up their 'illegitimate' children because of how society might reflect on them? I mean, geeze...lol Crimes against women and children and so on aren't really going up, it's just that these days they are reported far more. Society was very messed up and depraved during the 50's and before that -- a lot more than it is today. I don't know why anyone would hold up that era as being some gold standard of morality. The same stuff happened back then, but it was dealt with under the table and in a completely irresponsible manner. So, yes, we can see more of our society's warts today...but at least we are aware of what's there and we can talk about it openly and try to fix it.[/color]

[quote name='Generic NPC #3']Blue Storm is an absolutely excellent game that I think a lot of people didn't give enough of a chance. The control in Wave Race 64 was good, but largely because it was very "turn on a dime" in design. Blue Storm seems to be far more picky about things and I like that. If you customize your rider's abilities, some of them don't control much different than in the original game.[/quote] [color=#B0251E]Yeah, Blue Storm seems a bit Gran Turismo-esque, where the original was more arcade-like. Once you get used to Blue Storm's controls, it's actually a pretty intuitive and solidly-designed racer. I really enjoyed it, moreso than the original. Very tough in some places and very addictive. In terms of sequels that I didn't like...hm. I don't know if I can think of any that I actually didn't like. Wind Waker was gorgeous but it was also somewhat disappointing - the Triforce fetch-quest was particularly lazy. It felt very un-Nintendo. So that disappointed me. Super Mario Sunshine was also a great standalone game, but as a sequel to Super Mario 64? I'm not sure. It was [i]great[/i] - especially on first play-through - but it ultimately wasn't as much of a leap forward as I'd hoped it would be. And I didn't at all like the story elements that they included. That didn't feel very Mario-esque to me.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Maybe we can add something into people's profiles that lists their previous username. I'm really not sure. But I don't think it's practical to simply ask people to leave it in their signatures, because many simply won't. And I don't want that to become an actual rule on the site. So, perhaps we can add a field in their profiles where Dagger can type in their previous name or something. That way if you really want to know, you can check their profile and find out.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I don't know if there is much I'd change about how I look - sure, I can wish for certain things. I can wish for a different eye colour (coloured contacts are nice but they aren't real, are they?) or I can wish to be taller or to have a different shaped nose or whatever. But I really don't see any point in that. I can't change what I look like, so why bother? All I can do is make the best of what I have. I think that objectively, I'm a reasonable looking sort of person. So I can be comfortable with that - I'm not worried about looking like a model or anything, but I'm also not worried about being considered horribly ugly or something. My physical appearance certainly impacts myself esteem at times, but the circumstances are always different. Maybe my hair looks pretty bad on a certain day and it makes me feel a bit less confident or something. But that's about as far as it goes. My self esteem as it relates to appearance tends to relate more closely to my clothing than my actual looks. If I'm wearing torn-up jeans and an old t-shirt, I'm far less likely to be feeling attractive than if I'm a bit more dressed up. You know? But generally my appearance doesn't bother me too much. As long as I'm clean (and I always am), and as long as I'm at least reasonably tidy and stuff...then I don't have much of a problem. There are days when I don't feel so good about my appearance, but again, that's usually more related to clothing or hair or something like that. It's not a huge deal for me.[/color]

[QUOTE=Panda] Having a relationship outside of marriage to me is wrong. That would definitely be breaking my moral code. Even if I were really down and out there is no way I would cheat on my husband for any amount of money. That is my own personal ethics. I respect my husband and would never go against my marriage vows. [/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]You hit the nail on the head, for me at least. I would never be bought for something that would hurt someone else, or violate a very serious commitment that I've made. No money in the world could convince me to cheat, for example. But would I pose naked for a certain amount of money? Or eat a really disgusting food that I hate? Possibly. At least in those circumstances, I'm not really hurting anyone -- I'm just overcoming a significant personal boundary of my own. I think that's the distinction I'd make with this sort of thing.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I find it amazing that people still think there was a "Great Flood". There whole concept of a Great Flood has been totally and utterly disproven by modern geology. There are a whole slew of reasons why such an event would be impossible, not least of which being the whole concept that the world's eco-system relies on a very specific flow of water (and that the amount of water on the Earth is always the same -- water doesn't magically appear and then disappear, in other words). So aside from what people painted on rocks thousands of years ago when they didn't know any better, there's absolutely no natural evidence of it. And to go even further, such a thing is quite improbable if one knows anything about geology at all. I think that people's explanations of "great floods" probably arise from natural disasters, such as Tsunami and the like. If you look at the most recent asian tsunami, you can see how far inland the waters went (and how deep they were). Considering that people in isolated communities have attached spiritual significance to the tsunami, it's entirely reasonable to except far less knowledgable ancient cultures to have done that as well. So I really don't consider that point worthy of discussion at all, lol. So, HC had it right the first time. But I tend to feel that this specific issue is a little irrelevant. I think the last few posts are sort of skirting around a specific point, but aren't really getting at the bulk of what Chabichou mentioned. Let's try to get back to where the discussion was going, otherwise we'll end up with several tangents and the thread will become another generic religion thread (which would suck, considering that it seems to have done pretty well on the first page and a half).[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=blue']I think Generic is right. However, I should make one caveat: culture and religion should not be confused. Culture is a regional (i.e., geographical location) practice, while religion isn't bound by any particular culture/place. In fact, there are a lot of times where you'll find cultures conflicting with religious practices (probably because religion was introduced later to the ignorant ones and they just added/mingled their old ways that they couldn't part with).[/COLOR][/quote] [color=#B0251E]That's partly true. What I meant was that religion is more than just "a belief in God" -- it is, to some degree, a lifestyle choice. For some it's a very sigificant lifestyle choice that dramatically affects the way they live. To some degree you are right, but at the same time, religion also has direct cultural heritage and ties. There are different forms of religion practiced in different places, which can often be attributed to differences in culture (this is at least partly true in the Middle East, when you talk about different forms of Islam). So, I don't mean to say that the two are one in the same. They aren't. But religion or a "religious lifestyle" definitely has important cultural links, both historically and in a contemporary setting.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I think the key difference is that while athiesm is about having no belief in God, there is no particular organization or set of organizing principles surrounding it. By that I mean, there are no athiest commandments or particular religious ceremonies and so on. I mean, I think it would be possible to argue that a religion is more than just one's faith in God. A religion is almost like an entire set of cultural beliefs combined with certain lifestyle traits. This is why people tend to seperate "belief in God" from "organized religion". Of course, the two are intertwined, but they are also different. I think the only thing athiests share, in terms of beliefs, is that they [i]don't[/i] believe in God. But there don't really seem to be any cultural or lifestyle aspects to athiesm, versus religion. Even when one doesn't really practice their own religion, we still know that religions are more than just a belief in God. They come with an entire set of principles and theories and philosophies. But having said all of that, I think it's a pretty grey area anyway, when you consider that even religious people have varying degrees of support for their own religion (in terms of how much of it they choose to practice). In that sense, athiesm has no "practices", if you see what I mean.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Well, yeah, Buddhism doesn't believe in a Christian God anyway. But yes, athiesm isn't a religion. Nor is it a "lack of belief". If you're an athiest, you simply don't believe in God/religion. That doesn't mean that you lack beliefs in general or anything.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I think it's mostly just that when you [i]always[/i] see American teens talking about specific groups in this way, it becomes an "American thing", even if it's only the people online who are doing it (for example). I wouldn't want to say that there's anything scientific about that, though. Certainly, a lot of the people I know well online aren't like that at all. But then again, few if any of those people seem to lack maturity in general (and I definitely think that part of the whole labeling thing comes down to a question of maturity).[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Yeah, I had assumed that if I enjoyed the barebones demo that much, then the game itself is a total no-brainer. I'm really looking forward to it.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]The thing is though, most of these high school stereotypes are coming from American teens. Even in regular conversation with American teenagers, I see a lot of phrases used to describe different "groups" within the school. This simply doesn't exist within Australia (I can't speak for other countries obviously). So, I think it's important to point out that it's not so much about the word "goth" or the concept of a "goth" being American-centric, so much as it's an Americanism to find teenagers classing each other so specifically. Just look at the whole "emo" movement and even the word "tween". You'd simply never come across these things in my own country, lol. So yeah. I do agree that some of these stereotypes exist elsewhere (there are "goths" in Australia for example), but they are never used here as they are over there, particularly by teenagers in high school. Not to say that all American teens love labels and stereotypes, of course. But it does seem to be a largely American high school-based thing, with the very specific divisons on groups, based on what they wear/how they act/etc.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I played the demo for this ages ago and at first I wasn't sure how I felt. But after about twenty seconds, I thought "Wow, this game is amazing". Once you get into the rhythm, you realize that you've been playing for fifteen minutes without even thinking -- I mean, it just eats away the time. It's addictive. The demo itself with the mouse was fun enough, but I can see this game being even better with the touch screen and the inclusion of more detailed graphics (as opposed to the simple blocks on white background of the demo). But considering that I enjoyed the demo quite a bit, I'm definitely getting the DS version. This is one of my personal most-wanted DS titles and I'm not even really a puzzle game fan.[/color]

[QUOTE=Arcadia][size=1]I think we've pretty much shown that it depends on what you're being bought for, heh. For example, I would [i]never[/i] kill somebody for any amount of money because that's twisted and wrong. I would, however, flash anybody for a fair amount of money, despite the fact that I generally don't show off a lot of skin. It's not my cup of tea, thank you. [/size][/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]Same here. Mimmi and Annie can attest to the fact that I would strip for reasonable amounts of cash. Anyway, yes, I think it does come down to specifics. If someone paid me a million dollars to pose naked in a magazine, would I do it? Possibly. Maybe for more money than that, but, I think there [i]would[/i] be a price. But would I kill someone? No. Not for any amount of money. I also doubt that I'd actually commit any type of violent crime for a high amount of money...but again, it really depends what you're talking about. I think that in terms of crime, I probably wouldn't do it. But if it's just breaking a "moral code" or breaking a personal boundary of some kind...then it's possible. But yeah, it does depend on the specifics (what I'd have to do and how much money is involved ~_^).[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I don't get the whole stereotyping thing that American teens seem to do a lot. Who says that a "goth" needs to fit into a particular mould? Isn't it okay just to wear the clothing style of your choice (whatever that might be) and still, you know, be an individual with your own behavior...rather than moulding it into some prescribed category?[/color]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue] Also, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying anything against the book (hell, I haven't even read it). It's just that, the stuff I read online was quite unsettling: the author argues something as complicated as God, but doesn't know that there's a difference between revolution and rotation. And then various (possibly edited) excerpts clearly show that this "scientist" doesn't know that light is the standard for time (and then you have the fact that arguing something like the speed of light is pretty much pointless). Rather than go on and on about various, disturbing analyses I've skimmed through via google, I think it's best not to take these comments to heart and just read the book and judge for yourself. But, just based on what I found online, I will be wary about the author's scientific "facts" while reading (whenever I get around to getting the book, haha).[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]I don't know what you were reading...but believe me, this guy is a very reputable geologist. Rather than reading dodgy information on Google, I recommend actually trying to find the book -- it's the only way you can decide for yourself. Don't forget that Ian Plimer has made enemies from Creationist cults; obviously these people have an axe to grind and are anti-knowledge. So chances are, a lot of the stuff out there is going to be directly or indirectly sourced from such people. If you just read the book itself, you'll then be in a position to accept or reject what it is saying. Don't go into it being "wary" based on stuff you've read on the Internet -- you're already setting yourself up to fit a square peg into a round hole. Once you read it, I think it'll all make a lot more sense. We'll pick up the discussion from there. ^_^[/color]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']I only have one artist who I feel is underrated: Robbie Williams. He has so many great songs, has released tons of albums, and his music can appeal to so many people, but you hardly ever hear about him. If you don't know and love at least Robbie Williams song, go and hang yourself, save the gene-pool, lol. He is an amazing artist, and I think he is genuinely underrated by the vast majority of people. But, thats just the impression I get.[/size][/quote] [color=#B0251E]I always thought he was totally overrated, at least in Australia. Do you know how often his stuff used to get played on radio down here in Victoria? It was everywhere so often that it was easy for one to forget that there are other artists out there. lol But having said that, I wouldn't really regard him as a "traditional" pop star, at least if you were to compare him to boy bands or something. He seems to have a bit more variety and he seems to be a bit more of a showman in general. Mostly I'm not a fan of his music, but I wouldn't say that I really have anything against him or find anything from him to be especially objectionable.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]It totally and utterly decimates the concept of Creationism. It also talks about how Creationism has been rejected by major churches and how it has become a kind of cult-like aspect of religion, particularly in the United States. He also goes into the dubious "science" behind Creation Science -- there are specific examples and specific names. Everything is very, very detailed, I assure you. If you can find it, it will be an invaluable read. If you have any doubt about Creationism, it'll put those doubts to rest. lol[/color]

[color=#B0251E]It doesn't surprise me that you haven't heard much of it, Azure. lol You live in America, the home of "Creation Science". Believe me, none of what you said there is at all accurate. Go and read it. Then tell me what you think. ^_^[/color]

[color=#B0251E]I think the parents do need to face blame in some situations though. For instance, the Columbine situation. In that case, there were reports that the two kids who committed the massacre were actually on powerful ADD drugs during that time. Some reports have suggested that these drugs can cause significant chemical imbalance in certain people. So, in the case of the parents, what have they done? Rather than saying "Geeze, maybe we should have held back on the pills and paid a bit more attention to the sawn-off shotgun sitting under our son's bed", they went out there and blamed everyone from Marilyn Manson to Nintendo. I think that the bad parenting isn't always to do with how they raise their child -- it's how they respond to these incidents. Parents can choose to scapegoat and remove the responsibility from their children, or they can try to do something constructive about it. I agree that fundamentally, the problem is with the individual who has a mental instability in the first place. Anything could "push them over the edge", whether it's a product or something someone says. So in that sense I would not blame the games, or the music, or the parents. But there are cases where parents have been incredibly unhelpful and ignorant, which has further contributed to the problem.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Wow. I can't say that I really liked Raiden...but geeze people, chill. lol I mean, there were things about MGS2 that I didn't particularly enjoy in general (some story aspects, the frequent codec interruptions at the start of the game and the ridiculously forced "love story"). But you know, it was a fun game in terms of gameplay. And that's what matters mostly...to me anyway. My brother and I found Raiden oddly attractive, too. So maybe that could be considered some kind of compensation. Ahem, moving on... One character who I never found annoying until Sonic Adventure was Amy. Does anyone else really dislike Amy in the newer games? Specifically, her voice and attitude. I'm sorry, but she's a total cow. Not only is she outright rude to Sonic for no apparent reason, but she talks like an adolescent Rosanne Barr. Yuck.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Hm...phobias eh? Well, I definitely have claustrophobia; I've been in some situations where I've felt claustrophobic and it can bring on what feels like a panic attack or something. Thankfully it's been very rare for me to be in such situations (and I don't tend to feel claustrophobic in crowds and stuff...just if I were locked in a very small, dark place, unable to move or breathe easily). Other than that, heights are sort of an iffy thing...sometimes they worry me, sometimes they don't. I suppose it depends how secure I feel. If I were standing on the observation deck of a building, I doubt I'd be worried. But if I were clinging to the edge of a mountain? Yeah, very scary. I have one other "fear", which is something a couple of people seem to share. The fear is that I really [i]really[/i] hate the idea of something toying with my wrists. By that I mean...say, getting a drip in there, or being injected there, or cut there. That scares the absolute hell out of me. It's the ONE major thing that would freak me out about a hospital visit, honestly. Yuck yuck. I also hate needles, but usually I can cope with them okay...unless, of course, it's a giant needle going into my eye socket or something. lol[/color]

[QUOTE=Bombu][color=darkred] As for the voice acting, it doesn't really matter to me anymore. As amazing as this game is looking right now, I don't think any amount of poor vocals (song lyrics included, just in case ;)) could ruin my appetite for it. Regardless, it'll be hard to get Link's voice directly, I think, because there have been a few different versions of him already across many different LoZ games. On the one hand, you have a young, childish looking Link in TWW, yet you have a full-fledged swordsman in OOT and MM. Granted, they aren't the same person, but these fluctuations could give a new-comer LoZ player the wrong impressions, and may lead to a misjudgement of character. Though I'm glad I'm not in that boat. Phew.[/color][/QUOTE] [color=#B0251E]Basically, I'm mixed about the voice issue. Let's say, in a worst-case scenario, Nintendo puts horrible voices in the game. If they at least let me turn them off and just read text...then that'd satisfy me. On the other hand, I have to admit, Nintendo tend to have done a much better job with voice work than most companies. Just look at Mario. He's my all-time favourite game character (and franchise). Making him talk was a massive risk, but I love his voice...and I couldn't imagine him talking in any other way. At the same time, just about all the characters in the Mario universe (even the annoying ones) have appropriate voices. Or you could look at Metroid Prime (PAL version) or Eternal Darkness. In the former case, the narration was spot-on. In the latter case (despite not being directly created by Nintendo), we had pretty stellar voice work throughout. So I tend to feel that Nintendo is careful about how it applies voice in games, generally. Even Link's currently-existing adult voice (when he's slashing his sword and so on) really suits him. How would it sound when delivering dialogue? I don't really know. As long as he doesn't talk like an angsty teenager who just came out of a surfing competition, I'll probably be happy. lol Having said all of that though, I don't think that voice should at all be a prerequesite or a requirement. Although it's possible for Mario to talk a lot, I'm happy enough for him to just make grunts and yelps and so on. As long as there is clarity and variety to the sound, I don't really care.[/color]

[color=#B0251E]Guys! Hold up for a moment! Are any of you actually going to [b]read[/b] the thread? This announcement has [b]nothing to do with Final Fantasy[/b], period. It's about a company called [b]Mistwalker[/b], who happens to be owned by Sakaguchi. I repeat: [b]this announcement has nothing to do with Final Fantasy[/b]. I swear, the next person to post in this thread without reading it at all will face severe and painful punishment. lol[/color]