James

[color=#667F84]You mean the first Wu Zi Mu mission? [spoiler]I just completed that, it was actually my most recent mission. Basically what you'll find is that the first half of the race is pretty linear. That is, it generally follows a pretty even path with very few bends. I noticed that the other cars started to have trouble keeping up at different points, as in, they were crashing and having their own problems. It's really in the second half where things are more difficult, because of the frequent bends. The only advice I can really give you is that toward the end, you have to race through a farm. I recommend going over the ramp that leads through the barn there (it will shave off significant enough time if you are careful).[/spoiler] Other than that, it really comes down to your own driving skill. I really don't like driving missions much; I find them kind of annoying. Usually it comes down to a mixture of both skill and luck. Hopefully you'll have enough of both to help you when you attempt it. Good luck! Oh, also...before I go, I have a question for everyone here. I went to the airport just near San Fierro (I forget its name) and I got into the area with all the aircraft. But they are all locked! I only found one small helicopter that I could fly. So I am wondering, is there a way to unlock them or am I simply not far enough to utilize the full variety of aircraft? You may want to use spoiler tags when you answer. ^_^;[/color]

[color=#667F84]Complaining about quality in Otaku Lounge is a bit like complaining that the sky is blue; it always has been and it always will be. The fact is, Otaku Lounge is an off-topic, general discussion forum. I would ask you to do one simple, simple thing. Go back to the very oldest page of Otaku Lounge and take a look. Compare that to the most recent couple of pages. What you'll find is that Otaku Lounge has steadily [i]increased[/i] its quality over the years. Now, I realize that isn't saying much for many of you, but as Solo accurately points out, there is [i]no[/i] obligation involved at OtakuBoards; you don't have to post or read anything in Otaku Lounge if you don't want to. I don't buy the concept that the forum gives off an "atmosphere". Don't be silly. It's a forum and it's a forum that, if you don't visit it, may as well not even be there. You'll find that there are members on OB who only visit one or two forums. Those people often don't even know what's going on at other parts of the site; it doesn't matter to them, because they've made a choice about what they want to see and do here. I think the same goes for you, or for anyone else. If you don't like Otaku Lounge, simply don't participate in it.[/color]

[color=#707875]I'm going to be following the election coverage throughout the evening. We only recently had our federal election (a few weeks back), where Prime Minister Howard was returned for a fourth term with an increased majority, despite his support of President Bush. However, I should say that the reasons for his return were largely due to domestic issues (ie: his government's near-flawless handling of the economy). I have a very keen interest in politics, particularly American politics. So I always watch the coverage and read the articles and so on. I also wrote a major essay in one of my media classes about the Iraq war, which led me to doing a lot of resarch on the lead-up to it. So based on all of that, I'm definitely interested to see what the outcome will be. To answer your first question, I simply have no idea. Bush is ahead in the counting so far, but as we all know, the election could be decided by one or two "swing states". On that basis, it's still too early to really determine who the winner is. My only hope is that the winner is decisive; that there isn't a month-long debate about it, like in 2000. A clean win would be best for all concerned. To answer the second question, the simple answer is no. Constitutional ammendments are very difficult to make (both in America and in Australia). It is very unlikely that the Congress would actually ammend the constitution based on such an issue. As HC mentioned, the general consensus seems to be that the states will make the decision. A similar situation is true in Australia, as each of our states has its own set of legislation on the issue of things like civil unions (although marriage itself is, as far as I know, a matter of the federal sphere in this country).[/color]

[color=#707875]I had only played a little of Vagrant Story; I found the battle system somewhat annoying at times, but other than that I really came away with a fairly neutral impression of the game. In other words, I didn't either hate or love it. Having said that, Matsuno seems to be interested in reimagining the Final Fantasy franchise, so to speak. My hope is that he will keep the best traditions of the last few games alive, while still repairing the problems that have been apparent in the last few games. I haven't been reading much about XII though, as I don't want to spoil it too much. But what you mentioned about the steady girlfriend is great. One of the things I disliked most about Final Fantasy VIII and X in particular, is that the love stories seemed insanely forced and pointless. Squall annoyed me as a character; he was highly stereotypical and too angsty for me. And it seemed kind of implausible that he and Rinoa would get together. If that were real, I'd have imagined that Rinoa (being obviously far more mature and level-headed) would have brushed him aside in the blink of an eye. In Final Fantasy X, I also felt that the love story was incredibly forced. Tidus and Yuna are such different characters and in some cases it seemed a little odd that they'd be together. Perhaps this was compounded by Yuna's awful voice over, I don't know. I would have been more inclined to see Tidus and Rikku get together or something, or better yet, to see [i]nobody[/i] get together. At least the player had somewhat of a choice in Final Fantasy VII (is the rumor that you can date Barret at the Gold Saucer true? lol). I remember frequently rejecting Aeris in favor of Tifa. Aeris was incredibly, incredibly lame. At least Tifa seemed to exist on planet Earth.[/color]

[color=#707875]In some ways I'm really never surprised by these announcements anymore. If you look at the huge changes to the industry in recent years, stuff like this almost seems very minor. The only thing is, it's going to be very difficult to really trust Capcom anymore. I mean, even up until recently, they've been making frequent and extremely strong denials that the game would ever appear on another platform. Given the financial considerations, you would think that they would have been aware of the sales potential six months ago or more; to continually try to reassure people that it'd be exclusive in such recent times is a bit mystifying to me. But having said that, I don't really care about their decision. Obviously they felt it was the best thing for them to do and it's reasonable for them to want to cash in on the game as much as possible. At the very least, GameCube owners can feel satisfied that they will have the game a year earlier than PS2 owners. But PS2 owners may definitely be happy enough to have any extras that come their way, especially if the visuals are slightly worse on the port.[/color]

[color=#707875]Ah, cool, that makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you about Final Fantasy XII. I have traditionally found that with Final Fantasy games, I am unable to get the best of both worlds. What I mean is, if I like the story I usually dislike the battle system. Or vice versa. The only game to really buck that trend was Final Fantasy VII. The games from VIII through X were always a double-edged sword for me in that sense. However, XII looks like it may be a title that interests me in both areas. Everything I have seen in relation to the battle system looks interesting, to say the least. And I'm hoping that I'm right in saying that the story [i]can't[/i] be less interesting than Final Fantasy X's plot. I don't know if I'm in the minority when it comes to that position, but at the very least, I'm hoping that XII will be enough of a plot departure to gain my interest. The fact that XII will apparently not include some ridiculous forced love story is music to my ears, that much I can tell you.[/color]

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]Mae Laird... can't any of you use fonts that are REMOTELY READABLE! This is a slap in the face to the quality standards of the OB! How good would Shakespeare have been if HIS HANDWRITING WAS AS BAD AS YOUR FRIGGING FONTS!!?!?!?!? Ok.. onto Tatu. I personally don't find either of them attractive, and I've never taken the time to listen to their music. Moot point fer me really.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]If it's a moot point for you, then there is absolutely no need to respond to this thread. I feel I should mention that this is your first and [i]last[/i] warning from me. This post seems to be the most recent of many, which are simply inappropriate. If you intend to discuss topics here, at least try to make your comments relevant and worthwhile. Two members who posted in this thread have already been banned for such behavior, so I would remind everyone to keep the thread itself reasonable; if you want to discuss this group, you should be able to do so without people coming in and ruining it for you. If you want to make a criticism of the group, at least do it in a way that is reasonable and respectful to other members.[/color]

[color=#707875]You've made your point, Tony, but your posts have historically come across as sending the message that the "uneducated masses" are the ones who are delving into Final Fantasy, at least as far as OtakuBoards goes. You only have to look back at nearly all of your posts on the subject, to find some kind of reference to that. I'm completely willing to admit it if I've misinterpreted that -- in fact, I'd be very glad if that is true, because as I mentioned earlier, Final Fantasy is not some kind of illegitimate choice, nor necessarily a choice that people make simply because they don't know any better. I do agree with you that most people are going to go with what they feel comfortable with. I would venture to say that most Final Fantasy players [i]aren't[/i] familiar with other series and therefore, they go with what they know. However, I would disagree about the premise that Final Fantasy is some kind of mass-market trash in the RPG genre. As someone who [i]does[/i] play a variety of RPG titles, I don't feel that Final Fantasy can simply be lumped into that category. But as I've also mentioned, it is very difficult to put the entire series into one basket, considering the variations between individual games. Your latest post seems far more reasonable and conciliatory. But I feel that it is slightly different to what you've traditionally posted when it comes to Final Fantasy. So, I don't know if I'm the only one coming away with that impression, but that has been the basis for my response thusfar (other than to discuss the series in general, anyway).[/color]

[color=#707875]My basic feeling is that if you can't speak the language, you're not going to be able to accurately judge how good or bad the actor is. Of course, you can determine whether you like the voice or not...but that's a little different. For me, I often find that I dislike the Japanese voices in anime, simply because I often don't like the emphasis that is used in various sentences. Even the darker, brooding male leads can occasionally get very whiny and high-pitched, at the most odd moments. That may be completely normal to a Japanese audience, but as someone who has never grown up with the language around me in daily life, it comes across as very jarring at times. As a result, my suspension of disbelief is...well, not suspended. ~_^ This is why I often prefer dubs. However, dubs are much easier to criticize because I understand the language. So as a result, dubs can be a mixed bag for me; some are amazing, some are ear-splittingly over-the-top. It's very difficult, I think, and ultimately it really comes down to personal taste for me (and perhaps my interpretation of the character).[/color]

[color=#667F84]Ahh yes, that happened to me too. Although I stole a plane to do that; I actually managed a safe crash-landing in Las Venturas, although I was caught by the local cops soon after I landed. Still, it was a lot of fun. I think that my biggest wow would be the last mission I went on [spoiler]where you have to meet with all of the families in that apartment building, and the cops raid the place -- the shooting mechanic works so beautifully in that mission and the car chase afterwards is awesome[/spoiler]. I think that's just another example of how the game breaks things up and does so with a great deal of polish.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, that is a piece of spam and it has nothing to do with us. We will never send you emails like that; we'll never tell you to click on something like that. So I think the main thing is just to be smart about it. If you get an email like that (particularly if it's not from an "@myotaku.com" style address or whatever), then you know it's false and you should delete it at once.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah I know, I was exaggerating. ~_^ Vice City allowed that, though. I mean, so did GTAIII to an extent. From what I remember of those games, they allowed you to take missions from different people -- in some cases, those people had very different interests. In San Andreas you're basically "working for a particular side", but there is a great deal of complexity to the story versus the last two games, I think. Somehow San Andreas manages to feel a lot more real, in terms of characters. I have absolutely no interest in LA gangs or anything, but San Andreas still manages to give me some interest in its story. So I think that's saying something, considering that I'd otherwise have absolutely no interest in the setting and situation.[/color]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I'm not basing my thoughts on Final Fantasy on anyone else's interests really, other than my own. To me, lacking dungeons of any value is a problem. FFX, for example, had areas that basically just amounted to long tunnels. The Sphere Trials could be considered "dungeons" due to their nature, but they were incredibly poor in design. I doubt anyone would contest that.[/quote] [color=#707875]But that's my point. They are [i]your own[/i] interests. This doesn't mean that playing Final Fantasy is necessarily a qualitative step down, or that people don't know what they're doing so they simply go for what's easiest to find. That's really all I'm saying. Final Fantasy [i]is[/i] a valid option for many people, even though it's being portrayed here as being essentially unworthy to be played or compared to other RPGs. lol[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Now, would this be a problem if I didn't buy the original Final Fantasy on the NES at launch and grow up with this series? I doubt it. I've sat by and watched it change arbitrarily until I just decided I didn't want to buy the things anymore. The fact of the matter is that FF used to have dungeons. Interesting, well thought-out dungeons at that. They've been completely thrown to the wayside and the series has gone on to attract a totally different type of RPG gamer. [/quote] [color=#707875]Yeah, that's cool. I wouldn't disagree with you there at all. I'm just saying that you are constantly pointing out that Final Fantasy is some kind of tripe that the ignorant masses are playing because they don't know any better. What I'm saying, is that this is not necessarily accurate. Evidence of that is particularly clear when you look at people's responses to the series overall -- even the biggest fans of Final Fantasy don't like every single game. People have individual tastes and they have their own reasons for choosing the product. I'm just trying to express the view that Final Fantasy is as valid as choice as any other game and that for the most part, it is worthy of its status.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Is this a bad thing? Of course not. However, as someone who has been pretty much just forced out of this series due to its changes since the PSX days, I can't help but feel neglected in some way.[/quote] [color=#707875]Yeah, that's okay. But I don't think it's worth frequently calling into question the legitimate choices of those who enjoy the games. Basically, there are many areas on this topic where I agree with you. I certainly don't think that Final Fantasy is the be-all and end-all of RPGs. However, I do feel that it's important to be fair.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel]To me, this is an issue and a reason to not be into the current incarnations of the series. It's like taking Zelda or Mario or really anything else and removing things that I personally (and many others) consider the meat of the franchise. Would everyone here react to that well? I doubt it. People are still arguing about the [i]look[/i'] of The Wind Waker despite the gameplay being mostly the same as OoT. The things that interested me at the start no longer remain and what is left is a shell with lots of flash, really. What is there now just isn't what got me into the series to begin with. [/quote] [color=#707875]But there has to be distinction here. Saying that the newer games are "a shell with lots of flash" is totally inaccurate, in my opinion. If that were true, I wouldn't play them myself. It's reasonable that you feel disappointed by the way that the games have changed and that's fine. But taken for what they are now, I think it's far too easy to simply dismiss these games because of their heavy use of FMV or something.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']There's a reason I'm interested in FF1&2 on the GBA more than the past five Final Fantasy titles and it certainly isn't "nostalgia". There's also a reason I'm interested in FFXII - a new battle system, a REAL world map, the possiblity of some halfway decent dungeon segments and new designers such as Matsuno.[/quote] [color=#707875]Yeah, I understand that. I'm not trying to suggest that your position is based simply on nostalgia; I understand where you are coming from, at least in terms of your own feelings. Your taste is your own. But not everyone who enjoys the post-VI Final Fantasy games are part of the tasteless-masses, so to speak.[/color] [quote=Semjaza Azazel]I think when people read "dungeon" they think of a 15 level cave. I don't even care about that much, just something more than three screens with one way to go. I'm not looking for the next Wizardry title with a 105 story castle. I'm looking for something that is actually remotely challenging to get through and doesn't involve pushing blocks into holes. This doesn't mean I want to spend hours leveling up my characters. A want for dungeons [i]does not equal[/i] a want for dungeon crawlers. I think that's an important thing to say and it seems to be something people misunderstand quite regularly. Dungeon crawlers are the type of thing James is citing in his above post and that is not what I am expecting out of RPGs, especially ones such as FF. They are not what I'm talking about.[/quote] [color=#707875]Perhaps I used "dungeon crawlers" incorrectly; your interpretation of that term is a bit more extreme than what I was thinking. Perhaps I can expand on my comments by saying that the newer Final Fantasy games are almost totally devoid of "dungeons". If you are a fan of dungeons in RPGs, particularly in reference to older Final Fantasy games, it's understandable that the newer games wouldn't be as attractive to you. So I'm not trying to pigeon hole you or anything like that. I was speaking in general terms, to try and describe the [i]legitimate[/i] judgement that a player may make when they choose Final Fantasy versus any other RPG that you may want to mention -- particularly an RPG for a more "hardcore" player.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']For example, Shin Megami Tensei, Grandia, Lunar and so forth have the ability to customize characters, contain heavy story sections and anything else something like FF would contain. However, the areas you must transverse are "dungeons" in the sense that there is more to them than three doorways and four screens that all lead to the same linear location. Some time has to be invested and some mental power has to be used. I don't think this is much to ask, especially when FF used to pride itself on these very things.[/quote] [color=#707875]Yeah, that's totally reasonable. That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the frequent suggestion that Final Fantasy is somehow unworthy or something. There seems to be a perception that knowledgable game players can't or shouldn't legitimately choose these games as options to what they may otherwise play. I [i]do[/i] agree that many people, particularly here on OtakuBoards, simply aren't aware of many of the other RPGs out there. But by the same token, I do think that you constantly exaggerate how bad the Final Fantasy games are. Yes, these games have disappointed you based on their history and your own personal tastes. But this doesn't mean that they are "bad games" or that they aren't offering something quite compelling in and of themselves.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']FFTactics doesn't have dungeons. It has areas where you battle and the entire thing is visible from the get go. Spending an hour and a half in a battle is not something I'm looking for either... but really, fight after fight in that game with some actual mental ability being used can be far more entertaining than a more simple battle system at times. Despite its awful translation, FFTactics has a more compelling storyline than most normal FF games anyway, in my opinion. FFTactics and FFTactics Advance sold very well, really.[/quote] [color=#707875]Well, there are a few things I'd say here. My referece to FFT had nothing to do with dungeons, it was more related to the constant repetition of the gameplay. Of course, each battle is different, but the entire game is focused around frequent battling and a very in-depth battle/customization system. What I'm saying is that if you choose something more complicated that is your choice and it's no less valid than someone who chooses something that features more dialogue segments and less heavy battling. Both games are doing their own particular thing. And certainly, there are RPGs with even more simplistic and "lazy" battle systems than Final Fantasy. But again, it's very difficult to generalize across the entire series. In the post-VI games, you are talking about fairly different battle system choices in each game, which can significantly affect how that game plays. My overall point is that [i]both[/i] games are legitimate choices for players. One is only inferior to the other based upon your own tastes or my own tastes.[/color] [quote name='Semjaza Azazel']That's only one issue I have with the series, personally. It goes on from there to many other things. Would people necessarily consider the things I think are problems as problems? Who knows. All I know is that I raise my own $50 for these videogames and Final Fantasy rarely gets it anymore.[/quote] [color=#707875]Well, apparently they don't, given the success of the series. I certainly have plenty of beefs with the games myself -- I believe I've mentioned those in fairly specific detail in this forum previously. However, as I mentioned above, I don't like the constant put-downs of the series. In some ways it feels like a back-handed slap to those who [i]do[/i] know what they're talking about and who still have a legitimate interest in the series. Of course, it's always good for people to try new things. And perhaps if other series (such as Dragon Warrior) were more visible, we'd see very different sales results. And I think I'm always mentioning that in other ways (like Wind Waker or Metroid Prime, which should probably have sold more copies given the critical and anecdotal response to them).[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I'd really ask why they would address it. You know? I mean, the game isn't really about helping old ladies across the street. It's about you being part of a vast underworld. So obviously a major aspect of that involves violence. I have to admit though, that's not what makes it fun for me. The actual gameplay is what makes it fun. San Andreas simply does everything better than its predecessors, with regard to mechanics [i]and[/i] story. "Good" and "bad" is also a very relative term. I say that because in San Andreas particularly, you have a character who, despite being part of the underworld, is often in situations where there are many shades of grey. You have a pretty corrupt authority figure as well (Officer Tenpenny). So the game kind of sends the message that there is corruption and violence everywhere; our main character has to kind of make his way through that. So, sometimes you'll be doing outright cold-blooded things. But other times, your missions will be based on helping people who are on the down-and-out. I'll give you an example. [spoiler]During one mission, you need to burn someone's house to the ground. You're ordered to do it by Officer Tenpenny. Now, when you set it all alight, you discover that there is a girl trapped inside. During the mission, you have to enter the house and find her, then save her by using your fire extinguisher. Once this occurs, she actually becomes your girlfriend and you are responsible for her to some degree (or at least, you are responsible for the relationship).[/spoiler] So that's one example of the "grey" I'm referring to.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think you'll find, though, that it isn't so much a matter of Final Fantasy being noteably inferior to other RPGs. In my own experience (and from what I've gleaned through converastions with others), many players simply don't want to invest hours and hours into dungeon-crawler style games. I think that this is one reason why Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't so widely accepted by fans of the series. Obviously it was a somewhat different genre, but fundamentally, you're talking about a highly repetitive game with a massive amount of depth. Not wanting such depth isn't a [i]bad[/i] thing per se, it's just that many gamers aren't dedicated enough to want to invest such a long time going through dungeon after dungeon, slowly building up their attributes. In that context, Final Fantasy presents a reasonable alternative. Although I enjoy different kinds of RPGs (I quite liked Final Fantasy Tactics and was lucky enough to get it down here, thankfully), I find that I have to be in a specific mood to play those very intensive, laborious RPGs. I don't play them regularly because they require such an enormous investment of time. At least with Final Fantasy, I can have the best of both worlds. I can enjoy a somewhat deep battle system (as in, deep enough to allow me to tinker with my characters and their abilities), but I can also enjoy the fact that it's frequently broken up by story segments as well as a variety of locales. Not to say that this is the reasoning of [i]every[/i] gamer or Final Fantasy fan, but, I think it should be taken into consideration. I don't necessarily think that people are settling for Final Fantasy simply because they don't know any better (although I'm sure that plenty of those people exist, particularly in the younger age group). There [i]are[/i] wholly legitimate fans out there. :-P[/color]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel] We'll see what happens. Talks of the next GBA always put it in PSP power territory, which isn't a bad thing.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]That is a really important point. Too many people, particularly in the media, are erroneously comparing PSP and DS. What they should (and probably will) be doing, is comparing PSP and GBA2. GBA2 will be a more direct competitor to PSP. In fact, there have been suggestions for quite some time that the machine would possibly use GCN optical discs (since they are small enough for a reasonable-sized handheld unit). Some have suggested that this was an added benefit of the format, as it could be used on more systems than GameCube alone.[/color]

[QUOTE=Syk3] Right now I'm on a mission where you have to pack crates into a truck inside of a military base. I've failed the first couple times, lol, but I'm confident enough in what I have to do so that I can get it done fast now.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I liked that mission, except for one thing. [spoiler]When I was driving back to the garage, my truck rolled over (I hadn't dumped enough crates) and I thought I was done for. However, I was able to somehow drive it while it was on its side. lol I was maybe a few meters from the garage entrance, when the truck blew up from being rammed too much. How annoying. ~_^[/spoiler][/color]

[color=#707875]I think that Final Fantasy is a bit difficult to evaluate as a series. Each game is noteably different from the last, both in terms of story, battle system, etc... Also, different games in the series tend to have different individuals involved in their creation, to some degree. So...it's very difficult to judge the entire series at once. Obviously though, if you aren't a fan of the genre, you simply won't like Final Fantasy. I remember reading that someone hated the Mario games, which really shocked me (since I've never met anyone who didn't like Mario, even a little). But she really wasn't into platformers in general, she only liked RPGs. So, it was just a case of the genre not appealing to her. I like Final Fantasy okay; some games are better than others, in my opinion. But I'd be lying if I said that the overall series wasn't quite appealing. The success of it is really evidence enough of that. The good thing about the games being different is that if you didn't like the last game, you may still like the next one. Final Fantasy XII looks like it might have a much better story than X, for example. I strongly disliked the story in X, but I loved the battle system. So I know that XII won't merely be a continuation of a story that I had no interest in.[/color]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]The thing is that my name still fits me. I still ride horses and I'm still shorter than Lincoln, and last time I checked I'm still a woman. It's just that I think the whole thing is so damn long. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Wow. Heh, when I first saw your name after you registered, I thought it meant that you were a small, horse-like woman. Like some kind of anime character or something. o_O But that clears that up. lol[/color]

[color=#707875]This is one of the negatives of the Internet, I think. Sometimes when you are talking to people online all the time, you can develop a pretty good sense about them. I mean, when you're not there in person, the discussion can often be a lot deeper than it might be "in real life". I really think it's a double-edged sword in that sense. Yeah, it's great to have those kinds of discussions, but it's disappointing when you are unable to actually be there in person. My feeling is that if people want to have long-distance relationships, that's really their choice. I mean, I'm not going to tell them that it's not right or whatever. But having said that, I do think it's important for both parties to understand the issues involved. Coming to the conclusion that you really [i]can't[/i] be with the person you care about is very difficult, afterall.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think that the gun issue is very important and believe me, I'm the last person to defend Michael Moore. There's no question that he has an (extreme) axe to grind. A lot of gun crime occurs with people in the same family (ie: someone shooting someone else, particularly in domestic violence situations). So, I can't say I really buy that argument completely. I agree with it in a sense, but I also think that it ignores many other issues. Like I said before, life just isn't that simple. It reminds me of the marijuana debate. You could say that true marijuana users are only going to get the drug illegally anyway, so why not legalize it? Obviously the two are quite different, but the principle of the discussion is very similar. By the same token, the United States has a noteably different attitude toward ownership of guns than most other countries. I think it's one of the things that I dislike most about the USA, although I should really qualify that by saying that I am [i]usually[/i] defending the United States -- most of all, I tend to defend it to its own citizens, many of which don't seem to understand how their own political system works or what their own president's policies are. Of course, Australia has its problems. But...if you wanted to compare these things per capita, it would be laughably unbalanced. I mean, that's just not a comparison that you want to make, really. But to get back to the topic itself, I would say that violence itself is a problem, but what is possibly more concerning is the [i]reaction[/i] to violence that many in the media have. I mentioned earlier the way that news media handled the Columbine issue, particularly with regard to medication versus Doom. The fact that one item was so heavily mentioned, while others were not, is an indication to me that something is wrong. Moreover, in all the coverage I saw about that, I saw very little actual investigative journalism going on. It seemed to me that the answer was there, before the question had even been asked. And that is something that I disagree with, philosophically, in every single area of my life (media coverage or otherwise). But it's particularly noteable in this situation, I think. We are still having people complaining about GTA and games of that nature, even when the ratings are appropriate. And then we hear the uproar about Janet Jackon's breast on TV. It's not that these things can't or shouldn't be debated, it's that everyone focuses on them, to the detriment of [i]real[/i] issues.[/color]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']You don't need to blindly accept it. But surely, the removal of these weapons, the restriction of their distribution will lessen the amount available to potential murderers? Obviously, more than that needs to be done, but those steps in the beginning will help, won't they?[/size][/quote] [color=#707875]Yes, of course. Gun crime in Australia dropped off significantly after most kinds of weapons were restricted via the gun buy back program. There's simply no reason to have dangerous weaponry in people's homes. I mean, you could easily that more people die of one thing rather than something else. But that's just a deflection in my eyes -- it's like saying "don't worry about this when there is something worse out there". But that kind of thinking will take you around in a circle and you'll begin where you started. I am the [i]last[/i] person to blindly do [i]anything[/i] -- particularly when it comes to Government regulation. I wouldn't support it if there were not valid and logical reasons for doing so. However, I think that guns are only part of the problem. I still feel that there are broader social issues that are fundamentally broken, which need fixing.[/color]

[color=#707875]The thing about this game, which struck me versus the last two, is that so far I really haven't [i]disliked[/i] any one mission. Some are more fun than others, but it comes down to personal preference usually. The scenarios are all pretty varied so far, which is quite a challenge for the developers (especially given that they've already used so many ideas). I felt that in Vice City, the missions were becoming more and more stale...like I'd been there and done that. San Andreas is totally different. The game has a different feel (a superior feel) as a result of the way missions are designed. And the variety will keep you coming back, regardless of difficulty. Interestingly though, I don't find this to be any more difficult than Vice City in general. I think that's because my problems with Vice City (in terms of dying) were related to the fact that I sometimes found the controls very clunky and annoying. San Andreas almost totally solves that problem, by being a lot more intelligently designed in terms of combat and general movement. Cars are slightly more realistic and aircraft are a bit more floaty (but I think it works to great effect). [spoiler]Right now I'm up to the mission where you have to break in on a deal between the Ballas and the Russians. It's just after you start taking over enemy gang territory. I'm wondering when I'll be able to leave Los Santos, 'cause after all these missions, I'm still here. And I haven't been getting stuck all that much, I mean...there just seem to be a lot of missions. So if there are this many per city (and with country areas added in), I'm going to be at this for a while, I think.[/spoiler][/color]

[QUOTE=Epitome][size=1][color=SeaGreen] But there are others who are presented with similar things. Like I said before, there are definatley films and such things that are shown all over the world that dont necessarily promote violence but definatley show alot of it. But those facts once again came from Michael Moore...[/size][/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]You hit the nail on the head. The rest of the world receives the same kind of visual imagery when it comes to violence in movies, games and so on. Yet this phenomenon, for lack of a better word, doesn't exist elsewhere. So I think we can conclude that media (as in, entertainment media) has very little, or nothing to do with it. News media is somewhat different, because news media is capable of being very biased and influencing lay opinion. We see the results of that a [i]lot[/i] here at OtakuBoards. I think that such media takes advantage of the fact that many individuals, particularly young people, do not seek out multiple forms of news media. So if they're only hearing things from one or two sources in the same camp, they'll come away with a somewhat unrealistic viewpoint. That doesn't relate directly to violence, but it does indirectly relate, particularly when you're talking about coverage of violent acts (like what I mentioned about the medication and the complete lack of focus on that).[/color]

[color=#707875]What I was saying really reflected Moore's own line of thinking in regard to Bowling for Columbine. Moore's big mistake is that he started going after guns, and then took a sharp turn and went after "society at large", with specific reference to the media. The latter is fine (the American media is very guilty of fostering a lot of this so-called "violent attitude"), but the former should also be focused on. However, beyond that, I really think it comes down to parents and families. If your son shoots up his school, [i]don't blame Doom[/i]. As soon as you do that, you totally invalidate your opinion in my book. lol Funnily enough, in the case of the guys who killed their classmates at Columbine, they were apparently taking ADHD medication or something. And there have been very minimal reports that the medication they were taking had been widely reported to have various psychological side-effects. But of course, it plays better to say "Doom makes kids crazy" than "Get your damn kids off the pills that might be harming them." I mean, I'm not saying that the medication did it...but the immediate willingness to put blinkers on and blame media (without even [i]considering[/i] other factors) is insane. Life is not that simple.[/color]