James

[center]Chapter 16: Behind Bars[/center] Summary: Shortly after a bungled job, Jamie is sent to prison in Osaka, on remand. While there, he meets the famous Cowboy for the very first time. Characters: Desert Taipan, Cowboy. Setting: Osaka, Japan. Notes: This chapter is going to be important for a couple of key reasons. One, it will detail the first meeting of Jamie and Joshua. At this point (and I'm hoping I'm not forgetting anything), Jamie has been sent to prison as a result of a bungled crime (which was mentioned in Volume 1, I believe). This was before he met Adam. While in prison, Jamie and Joshua meet and that's when their romance begins. Beyond that, the two first come into contact with Adam (who is aware of their situation and their respective reputations). In addition, this chapter will be an opportunity to go a bit deeper into the characters themselves and to hopefully shed light on their histories a little more. I'm also hoping we can include some colourful characters in the prison; perhaps some funny situations. I'd like the posting order to be as follows: 1) Shy 2) James Shy has already established a slight history for his character, in regard to his prison experience. I want to give him the opportunity to flesh that out somewhat, so that he can introduce Jamie as he feels is most appropriate. Then I will follow on and include my own details.

[quote name='wrist cutter']Say, why aren't I a mod? I HAVE been here a long time. Veteran status has got to count for something. If I haven't been banned yet I must be alright.[/quote] [color=#707875]Because you frequently come pretty close to being banned as it is, Mr. Cutter. But usually you're [i]okay[/i]. ~_^ As it is, I tend to prefer choosing a variety of people for the staff, whether they are new or whether they've been here a while. But as always, ability is the most important thing, with time spent at the boards being irrelevant. Anyway, I'm going to close this now. I think we've pretty much discussed this issue into the ground by now.[/color]

[color=#707875]These are all very cool. I like the Matrix one the most, in terms of what you've chosen to capture. The only advice I'd give you is to actually increase the frame display time slightly, so that it plays more like an actual film (rather than being a bit too fast, as it is currently). [/color]

[color=#707875]Basically I think that spike has answered his own question with his posts. All we are looking for is on-topic and reasonably high quality posts. High quality just means, something beyond a single word, which uses at least [i]legible[/i] English and that remains on-topic. That's all. There's nothing difficult about that. but wen u typ leik diz itzvrry h@rd 4 ppl 2 ndrstand u~!!!!!!:):):):) See? It's tough to read, it's lazy and it's annoying. It's no fun. So, as a consequence, we make it against the rules on OB. ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE=Dan Rugh] Her full name is Kuchiki Rukia. The only reason they're all calling her "Kuchiki-san" is because she [spoiler]now goes to their school and everyone is supposed to address everyone else by their last names.[/spoiler] So no change there. Anyway, I love Rukia because she's always so serious but she still can come off as hilarious when the time is right. It's great how [spoiler]fake she is when she's in school or around a classmate. When they saw Orihime on the street, Rukia at first said something like "Who the hell are you" and then when Ichigo told her who it was, her voice got real high and happy. The part when she was in Ichigo's closet with his sister's pajamas on was great, too.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Oh yeah, I understand about the naming thing. But for some reason I'd wondered if her name was different. Momentary memory lapse. ~_^ I definitely like Rukia. As I mentioned earlier, I also really like her actual design...she has a different look to traditional characters (like Inoue, who is as typical as they come). Is there any word on when episode 3 might be available?[/color]

[color=#707875]It's kind of ironic; I often seem to receive sunglasses as gifts. lol Yet I really never wear them. I think that over the last five years alone, I have received maybe five or six pairs as gifts. Some of them are quite expensive too. I guess that quite a few people here wear them, but still...I've never really worn them. Only on very rare occasions. In regard to glasses though (as in, regular glasses), I used to wear them, but now I wear contacts. I tend to like glasses on other people -- provided that the glasses are at least mildly fashionable, of course. ~_^ I actually think that glasses can be quite a sexy/attractive accessory. I've never understood the stereotype that says glasses are unattractive or whatever. The only thing I find odd about glasses is when people wear sunglasses indoors, particularly in shady/dark rooms. What's up with that? ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Basically though, if you make it legal but you put regulations in, you're really only taking one step forward and one step back. You might as well just keep it illegal. Basically I think that people are going to seek out the drug if they want it, regardless of the legality. However, the illegal factor will hopefully make it tougher for most people to locate it and it may help to deter those who would otherwise give it a try. It's kind of like saying that we should just go open-slather and make all drugs legal because people will do them anyway. I think that there are definitely arguments in favor of that, to some degree, but I tend to think that proponents of legalization stretch the truth a great deal, with regard to the drug's impact. Saying that people don't smoke it as much as cigarettes is kind of irrelevant I think. Again, we can't go in there and make sure that people only smoke a certain amount. You can't control that, you can only have some level of control over access in the first place (and prosecution of those who produce and sell). I think the biggest argument against legalization, from my standpoint, is that you are potentially opening the floodgates. Not to say that everyone will become a weed addict or something, but clearly, a [i]lot[/i] more people would have free access. And none of us would do that with any other harmful product -- you wouldn't take a prescription drug that can have harmful side effects and start selling it to anyone and everyone without a prescription. That's kind of how I view marijuana. Keep it as a prescribed drug to treat chronic pain, and leave it at that. We don't need to add [i]another[/i] harmful product to store shelves. And Serraph, what you've said there only strengthens the point that I was making earlier. Making the drug legal isn't going to somehow make it less appealing to teens. Teens will probably be doing it in greater numbers if anything, because there will not only be rebellion against parents, but also significant peer pressure (which we know already exists to a large extent).[/color]

[QUOTE=Serraph-Angel][size=1]I personally disagree with you on the fact the marijuana is more harmful than tobacco. Although marijuana is harmful, I think because of the fact that cigarette companies add rat poison and ammonia in some of there cigarettes, well theres a problem... But if a joint or pipe has marijuana laced with something in it... then there could be a problem. One of my friends who I used to go to school with, smoked once and he almost got addicted to heroin because it was laced to it. Thats the only problem with legalizing it. It could be laced. And yes it is addicting, but thats why I think we should legalize it. Because if we legalize it, theres no sense of "rebellion" as I said before, and if there is no sense of "rebellion", then I think that most or alot of teens and other people that use marijuana, would stop.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I'm speaking based on scientific research though. I mean, if you compare regular marijuana smoking to regular tabacco smoking...both are dangerous, but marijuana has some potentially severe mental side effects. All too often, proponents of marijuana try to suggest that it's a "harmless drug" or that it's somehow being victimized. But that is incorrect. It's a drug, and it's potentially very dangerous. I also don't agree at all with the rebellion point. And I don't think that there is any data to back that up. As I said earlier, my younger brother smokes. I'm sure he started because it was "cool" or something, but now he is addicted to it. Smoking tabacco isn't illegal. The sense of rebellion was there regardless of the legality of the item -- I guarantee you, making it legal isn't going to somehow make it less attractive. lol[/color]

[color=#707875]Thank you for your comments, Arcadia. The more I go over it in my head, the more interesting it seems. I was thinking that we could also utilize some Danny Elfman tracks for the RPG, which would further add to that atmosphere. Also, on an unrelated topic, I have to show you my ideas for character design in Fox Force Five, Arcadia. We need to talk about that again, because there are still lots of things to flesh out and stuff. I'm interested to see if you like the approach I'm thinking of taking with character designs, so I'll chat to you about that when it's possible.[/color]

[color=#707875]The problem with Biblical references, though, is that the Bible says a lot of things that most Christians would disagree with. I was reading an article a while ago which actually listed some of the very bizarre "laws" in there. Unfortunately though, people will selectively pick and choose what to go along with and what to ignore. I think the answer is simple. People hate what they don't understand, whether it is someone of a different gender, sexual orientation, race, culture, religion, [insert stuff here]. Oftentimes, people will use religion to justify what is otherwise an irrational hatred. The Ku Klux Klan and groups of their ilk [i]also[/i] cite the Bible and other sources to support and justify their views on racial integration. So the fact is, people will find a justification for any kind of thought or action. What matters, I think, is overcoming those things and trying to empathize with one another, rather than focus on the differences and using them as divisive tools. Anyway, I think that this question has pretty much been answered. Thanks to everyone for their views.[/color]

[color=#707875]My basic view is that I don't support the legalization of marijuana, but I do feel that it should be able to be prescribed for people who are seriously ill (and where morphine or other drugs aren't able to ease pain). The idea that marijuana isn't dangerous is a complete misconception. The actual plant itself is more dangerous than tabacco. The only reason that people are saying tabacco is more dangerous is because tabacoo is smoked more frequently. But that in and of itself isn't really a terribly strong argument in my view, because how often you smoke it is irrelevant (since we can't go in and control how often people smoke it). What matters is how dangerous the substance is. The key problem with marijuana, from the materials I've read on the subject, is that it can lead to longterm mental problems -- including skitzophrenia and other disorders. Of course, you do have to be a regular user for that to occur. But again, how does one define "regular user" when you consider that the drug has different effects on different people (ie: some are affected more quickly, others are not). I tend to view marijuana as I do cigarettes. If cigarettes had not been invented and I brought them out onto the market today, they would never become legal. Why? Because we know enough to say that this type of product is too harmful and harmful products (products that will cause serious health problems) are going to be blocked from sale on the market. Marijuana is no different. It hasn't been legal so far, so making it legal now really doesn't achieve very much. My feeling is that kids are going to smoke it regardless of the law. If they want to experiment with it, they will. Making it legal isn't going to somehow remove some "taboo" -- I don't agree with that. My younger brother smokes cigarettes and I can tell you right now, if cigarettes were illegal, he'd have a [i]much[/i] tougher time tracking them down regularly. I should also add that you [i]can[/i] be addicted to marijuana. Some of you are countering misconceptions with your own misconceptions. lol One of my dad's employees is a marijuana addict; so much so, that he will go without buying diapers for his children -- or even buying food in some cases -- just so that he can buy more marijuana. Although I am sure that the chemicals present in certain drugs can create addiction, you are forgetting that addiction is also the result of an [i]addictive personality[/i]. There are people who are more prone to different types of addiction (such as addiction to gambling, alcohol, various drugs, sex, etc). [/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I think you've really hit the nail on the head, 'breko-san. Anyone who has seen The Nightmare Before Christmas will know [i]exactly[/i] the kind of theme I'm going for. Bear in mind that TNBC was really a kid's movie. This Zelda would probably be more violent than that, but still, the fact remains that this is the aesthetic style I'm looking for. In my opinion -- and as a Zelda fan -- the potential for this new Zelda universe is almost limitless. I've already mentioned how some things are twisted on their head (like fairies, Lon Lon Ranch and so on). But think of how far you could take it. I was thinking that the Gerduo may not be women, they might be men dressed as women (ie: a village of transvestites, lol). I was also thinking about how the Zora could be potrayed. Basically, it would be a world of misfits (much like TNBC). There's plenty of potential for violence, of course, but there is also tremendous potential for comedy and for a very eerie and moody atmosphere. I was saying to someone on AIM that I would actually like to redo the Zelda logo for this RPG...and make it all curly and twisty, like the Burton logos that you see on his animations and films (Bish Fish's logo would be another example). I think that would look awesome, though I don't even know if I'm comfortable enough with doing it. ~_^ But still, I think there's plenty to work with here. On the one hand, we would be creating a new universe, so we wouldn't have to worry about being inconsistent with what is established. The story and everything would be somewhat new. However, we can borrow from existing elements and twist them around, to incorporate them into the new landscape. This could also be fun for people who aren't even knowledgable about Zelda at all, because really, they can still follow everything as though it's totally new. I've also considered the possibility of incporating Four Swords elements. I mean, what if Link was one of four quadruplets? Perhaps the four of them would have to go on this adventure together and each individual Link would be different. So, rather than just having different coloured outfits, maybe they would have some specific differences in their appearance and/or personalities. I had even thought about making the four of them conjoined at birth...and then forcibly seperated (which means they'd have stitching all over them), so that they are kind of four sides of one person. I can actually imagine a really cool character design there (think Wind Waker style art, but with drab colours, torn clothes and stitching on the body). Basically, it's an idea I've been pretty excited about for a while. I just have to think about how I'm going to structure it, aside from story and all of those things.[/color]

[color=#707875]I may have come across the wrong way, I think. The RPG will no doubt be violent, but my intention isn't to make it unnecessarily violent all the way through. When I talk about making it like a Tim Burton movie, I'm really talking about the style of "gruesome" that you see in his films. Nightmare Before Christmas is a great example. It's not exactly "violent", as such, but it has a very grotesque aesthetic to it. You know? That's sort of more what I'm talking about. A twisted, bizarre, dark and grotesque version of Zelda. Violence will be there, of course, but I wouldn't say that violence will be the focus. Although violence itself isn't so much the focus of Kill Adam (it's more a symptom of the characters who are the focus themselves), but yeah, I know what you mean. [/color]

[color=#707875]Erm, I don't really want to get into the broader debate here, but I did want to contribute one point. I tend to agree that knowledge does not equate to intelligence. You can posess much knowledge (and regurgitate that information), without either understanding it or being able to analyze it. I think that The Matrix is actually a good example when it comes to discussing intelligence. I was talking to my mother about it the other day (we have a lot of Matrix-related discussions) and I said to her that when I talk to people about the films, they often say that Reloaded was their least favourite, but that Revolutions was slightly better and the original Matrix was the best. I think this is because the first film holds your hand all the way through. It forms conclusions and it satisfies the audience, without requiring too much thought or analysis. Reloaded is the complete opposite -- it throws dozens upon dozens of concepts and tidbits of information at the audience, but makes very little attempt to hold the audience's hand and clearly resolve these issues. There are only two real "resolutions" in the story -- The Merovingian and The Architect. What each one says is incredibly important. The Merovingian's discussion in the restaurant actually explains the underlying deception of the prophecy [i]well before[/i] the Architect appears. But nobody picks that up. I said to my mother that this was my greatest frustration -- not so much that these films aren't appreciated, but more that nobody makes any effort to understand them. I believe that what I've said about these films can also relate to many other kinds of media, or really any situation in life. If an answer is not immediately apparent -- if something leaves you confused -- you can either bury your head in the sand and say "that was awful, it made no sense", or you can attempt to investigate and reason things out. I think that reasoning things out, and making an attempt to work your way through the clues, is a sign of intelligence. However, I think you can be intelligent (ie: you can have the ability to do these things), but still not make the effort to actually go out there and expand your understanding. I would say, in that context, that understanding and knowledge are not necessarily the same thing. But I do agree that the ability to seek knowledge is more important than the ability to simply hold or retain knowledge (which is really what my post is about, in a longwinded fashion).[/color]

[color=#707875]I tend to view Lelia as Beatrix and Arianna as Elle. That dynamic was sort of established from day one (ie: the sign-up thread). However, we have to remember that Lelia was killed [i]before[/i] Arianna. So...I think this could actually leave you a lot of room to have Arianna muscling in on Lelia's territory during that timespan. I think that would be very interesting, particularly because it'd directly coincide with Volume 1. But yeah, I look forward to whatever else you have planned, regardless of what time periods you are using. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, you have to make sure that your frame display time is correct. On my animations, each frame will usually display for either 6/100ths of a second, or 8/100ths of a second. Frame display time is crucial, because that dictates the speed and fluidity of your animation. It is then possible to change frame display times at different parts of the animation, in order to achieve a different effect (ie: slow motion, or high speed). In my latest banner, however, that wasn't the technique I used. The reason that the slow motion part looks very smooth is because it contains many, many frames. Each frame only shows a very small movement. So the end result is that you can keep your frame rate the same (about 6/100ths of a second) but still achieve a very fluid slow motion effect. [/color]

[color=#707875]Actually, this is very good for a first attempt. It takes a little time to start working in borders and smooth camera movement (in fact, I hardly ever do manual movement of the frames, other than finding the area I want by using the dimensions of the image as a kind of viewfinder). I think it's not necessary to worry about moving the image around the canvas right now. The main thing is just to learn to put the frames down, put your borders on there, and get it done with a good repeat (ie: so that it doesn't sharply repeat itself) and of course, to keep the memory as low as possible. But I don't think this is a bad attempt. You just need practice, is all. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Desbreko, I know that I told you a little about my new Zelda RPG idea a while ago and I made some comments about it at myOtaku. For those who don't know, I've called it "Zelda" (at least that's the working title ~_^) because it's a major reinterpretation of that franchise. I guess that it would primarily be a reinterpretation of Ocarina of Time. In terms of what it specifically deals with, I think I want to go for a specific mood. Primarily, I want to make a Zelda that's more like something Tim Burton would do, you know? Something very dark and twisted. I'll give you some examples. In this "alternate Zelda", Lon Lon Ranch is an abbatoir instead of a ranch. I was also thinking that Talon might be an abusive father, and Malon might be a drug addict as a result. I had even darker thoughts about what Talon's character might be like (I mentioned to someone that he may even love working in an abbatoir because he's also a necrophile), so...if you think about that, you can kind of see where I'm going. In regard to the Kokiri, we know that they have fairies and that they don't leave the forest. They remain perpetually young. In my version, the Kokiri only avoid leaving the forest because they [i]can't[/i] leave. They are prisoners. Fairies, instead of being friends of the Kokiri, are actually carnivorous creatures that dwell in the forest. And they have a particular taste for Kokiri that happen to stray too far from the beaten path. So the fairies provide a good excuse for the Kokiri to remain where they are. If you take that to its logical conclusion, there are all sorts of things you can experiment with there. Additionally, I was thinking about the actual town center itself. If you look at some of the language used in the Japanese version, you'll find that much of it has been "cleaned up" for the US translation (the Japanese are far more open when it comes to issues of sexuality and so on). I had considered that Zelda may not be a princess at all. Rather, I had thought of her perhaps being a prostitute or something along those lines. This doesn't mean that she has any less importance in the story, however, her character could be a lot more gritty and tragic. Despite the setting, I don't think that the RPG has to be entirely depressing. If you look at something like The Nightmare Before Christmas, you have a situation where the environment/setting and characters are all incredibly bizarre and twisted. In fact, some of the elements in NBC are incredibly gross. However, the movie still has a certain beauty about it. You have two characters who fall in love, despite being complete misfits. There are also elements of black humor in there, which work really well. So, this is what I'd like to do with a Zelda RPG. I'd like it to almost be a Tim Burton's Zelda, you know? The only problem with this is that I figured a lot of Zelda purists may not like it. I also figured that this RPG may potentially be a little too extreme. I mean, a lot moreso than Kill Adam. However, I think it's mostly just a question of attracting people who understand that and who are still interested. As long as I'm very up front about my intentions, I think it will work out just fine. What are your thoughts on that idea? ~_^[/color]

[QUOTE=Siren] But the difference I'm seeing between those games and GTA, is I'm not seeing the relevance in most of San Andreas' immersion-enhancers, as it were.[/quote] [color=#707875]Well hold on, let's think about what GTA is trying to achieve here. GTA has always been about creating a "virtual sandbox"; a city and environment that behaves as realistically as possible, whilst also providing some liberties so as not to make the game [i]so[/i] realistic that it isn't fun. Just look at the radio. That's one tiny example of the many immersion techniques that have always worked beautifully in the GTA games. The radio isn't just [i]there[/i] -- it has a link to specific characters throughout the series and it attempts to make you feel as though you're living in a certain time period. Very few games pull that off as effectively as GTA. Regardless of what the specific complaints may be, you simply can't argue that GTA isn't an immersive experience. GTA is all about immersion and the reason that these techniques do work is because they are [i]all[/i] relevant to both the time period and location, as well as the characters themselves.[/color] [quote name='Siren']But if we're going to get to eat donuts, presumably, going to a Dunkin Donuts or the GTA equivalent, what is going to be the significance or relevance of that donut shop? Is it going to be a front for gang-related activities? Are we going to sit down at the counter and munch on a raspberry jelly-filled, sugar powdered donut? (Damn, that got my stomach growling, lol)[/quote] [color=#707875]What is the significance or relevance of that donut shop? Think about it for a moment. You're missing the most obvious point. The fact that a donut shop even exists and the fact that you can go and eat there, is in itself, justification for its existence. Remember, GTA is going for realism and immersion. It's no different to what Sega did with Crazy Taxi, when they had a number of actual fast food chains and recognizable stores. Sure, Crazy Taxi was an arcade game that didn't strive for realism in terms of behavior -- however, the game was nonetheless highly immersive, for a variety of reasons (many of which mirror GTA).[/color] [quote name='Siren']Furthermore, what is the significance of the other fast food and pizza joints, apart from altering the character's appearance and having a mild influence on the character-character dynamics? Also, is CJ actually going to sit down in these places and are we going to watch him down a cheeseburger? Is it going to be an item of sorts that drops on the ground? I just read through a few of the IGN articles, and didn't see anything about that specifically. I figure more details will be released/found as we get closer to the release date.[/quote] [color=#707875]I think that you are looking at it in the wrong way. It's not about "the act of eating the cheeseburger". It's about the fact that you [i]can[/i] eat the cheeseburger and that the cheeseburger will have a tangible impact on gameplay. First and foremost is your appearance. There are many games out there which allow players to change their appearance. And usually, it's done in a manual way (ie: you simply go in and choose what body type you want and what clothes you want). Generally speaking, this is always considered a good feature -- a way to further customize your character. So why penalize GTA for including it? Nobody penalizes other games that include it. That's the first point. The second point relates to a significant difference between GTA and other games with this feature. In other games, it's usually a mere cosmetic issue. In GTA, it has fundamental consequences in gameplay. And those consequences aren't just two dimensional. Your changing body type is going to have a direct impact on your physical performance, which again relates back to the immersion element. You eat a cheeseburger, you expect to put on weight and you expect to run slower or become tired more easily. Simple as that. In addition, your body type and physical appearance are going to have an impact on the way others in the game perceive you. And by that I mean, anything from a simple comment from someone on the street, to a series of differing responses during missions. All of these things are significant and all of them are worth talking about in a positive manner. The only reason I'd criticize this feature was if it was detracting from other game features, or if it was incorporated in a clumsy way. The latter, we simply won't know until the game is released. And the former really can't be argued, because "eating" is one of many features in this game and it is by no means a feature which the entire game revolves around.[/color] [quote name='Siren']I don't think anyone would really consider them "high art." My point with that was I'm not looking for a comprehensive GTA game. The character customization/character dynamics changes are not blowing my skirt up, as it were. The series was never all that deep, gameplay-wise, or character-wise. It doesn't detract from the fun, however, and while it seems like I'm being hypercritical of the GTA series, it's definitely one of the more fun series I've played in a while.[/quote] [color=#707875]So what is the point of your criticism? Are you complaining simply for the sake of complaining? lol. The character customizations are one tiny part of this game. 1/100th. Go and take a look at the IGN articles that talk about stealth missions at night, or go and take a look at the articles that discuss missions related to the badlands environments. Or go and look at the articles that talk about the far more detailed car customization engine. The fact of the matter is, GTA is all about realism and it's all about choice and non-linearity. If those are things that you don't like or don't appreciate, then chances are, you won't find GTA very fun. But if that's the case, then GTA simply isn't what you should be looking for (and I say that to everyone out there). San Andreas is a qualitative leap forward from the previous games, which were pretty good, in and of themselves. They weren't without faults (and I'm the first to be critical of them), but my criticisms are well-placed. I'm not going to criticize GTA for adding another feature, or giving me more options and choices in the game. That would be like criticising Square Enix for making a tactical strategy game with too many layers of depth or something.[/color] [quote name='Siren']It's just that there's only so much you can do before you start overdoing it (incidentally, that's why there isn't an "AlexFilms Ltd" title card in Rebel Scum, heh), and hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised by San Andreas.[/quote] [color=#707875]But what's your fundamental point? Are you saying that this game has [i]so much[/i] that players simply can't play all of it? Or are you saying that if you focus on too many seperate areas, the overall experience will be worse-off, because the game will be less focused and the designers are spreading themselves too thin? I can only assume you're arguing the second point. But I guarantee you, that point is unfounded. You will see what I mean when you play it.[/color] [quote=Siren]Regarding the various missions/sub-missions and so forth, I enjoy varied gameplay. I have no problem with it. One of my most memorable missions in the series was having to snipe a dozen armed soldiers on a storage barge. It was fun, and a healthy challenge. But it's not really anything new, albeit it is executed very well, and integrated very well.[/quote] [color=#707875]But again, what's the point of that criticism? Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door does nothing "really new" apart from a few small additions. But that doesn't make it an unfun game. lol We're talking about GTA here, not Pikmin. It's GTA...so it's going to behave like a GTA game. Having said that, though, I can tell you right now, there is [i]plenty[/i] of stuff here that is new. The most interesting of which would have to be the new burglar missions. Allow me to explain. In San Andreas, it is possible to earn money by stealing goods from people's homes and selling them to a fence. Rockstar could have executed this in a very simple and boring manner. But as it stands, these missions are interesting enough to be a game in their own right. As far as I know, you can burgle a house in day time or evening. But evening is better, simply because you have less chance of being caught. When you do these missions, you'll need a vehicle that can carry the stolen goods (I think you may require a specific vehicle). The idea is to sneak into someone's house, through either a window or door (and without being seen) and to then quietly sneak around their home and steal items. Whilst you are in this mode of gameplay, the game operates a lot more like Rockstar's Manhunt. From what I remember reading, you have a kind of "noise meter", which will alert you as to how much noise you're making and give you an idea of whether or not you're going to be waking the residents up. Bear in mind that plenty of residents are going to have weapons of their own, which is always a risk. And the last thing you want is to be trapped in a house with police surrounding you and trying to storm in. This is, again, just one small example. Yet it's a significant new feature that provides even more possibilities when it comes to earning money and playing the game. The fact that stealth has even been added (and is based on the mechanics used in Manhunt), means that you're going to be experiencing some very new dynamics in this game. Of course, stealth itself isn't new. But to argue that would be pointless, because that's like pointing to a new Zelda game or something and saying "Oh look, it's 3D. 3D is nothing new." Know what I mean? Individual elements on their own don't have to be new. That part of it doesn't matter -- what [i]does[/i] matter, is how these elements are used and implemented and whether or not that has a positive impact on gameplay.[/color] [quote=Siren]I'm not attempting to minimize Rockstar's work on the series, at least from a coding/programming standpoint. I suck royally when it comes to programming. Desi can attest to that when he had to revamp all my HTML for Rebel Scum. I know game programming is incredibly difficult, and I'll give Rockstar props for what they've done, and respect them for what they've done, but just because I can appreciate the inner workings of the games doesn't mean I'm going to automatically/necessarily appreciate the outer workings/appearance of the games, if that makes sense, lol. And you know I have no problem with art that has "plenty of profanity and violence." ~_^[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I understand what you mean, but I really view your criticisms in this thread to be 100% invalid. I don't know how much you've read about this game, but it seems to me that you're not quite understanding exactly how much is being changed and added in San Andreas. My intention isn't to suggest that San Andreas is going to be the be-all and end-all of gaming or something. I'm sure it will sell very well, but I believe that I am going to enjoy it more than I did previous GTA games, for some of the reasons that have been described in this thread. Of course, I do have some strong criticisms of GTA too. And I've expressed those earlier in the thread. But I think that there is warranted and unwarranted criticism and it's important to recognize which is which. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]I just saw episode 2. It'd been stored for a little while, but I finally got around to watching it. I am really pleased with it; I think it's substantially better than the first episode, which is really nice. The best part, perhaps, is that episode 2 slightly increases the complexity of the story, without compromising the light-hearted overtones from the first episode. If things continue in this way, then I think we could definitely be set for something very memorable. In terms of the specifics, there are a few things that I really enjoyed. [spoiler]I particularly enjoyed the fact that Kuchiki (I'm forgetting her "original" name, if it was different) has remained a part of the story. It's a great twist that she's now living with Ichigo and guiding him through the story. She is great because on the one hand, she's providing the audience with some background information at certain moments, while on the other, she's providing a good sense of comic relief throughout the story.[/spoiler] Oh and, is it just me, or is Kuchiki's hair very awesome? It seems to have a noteably different shape from most generic anime females, which is why it stands out to me. She comes across as a pretty distinctive character. [spoiler]And is it just me, or are Inoue's breasts abnormally enormous? o_O It almost seems...sexist, or something. lol[/spoiler] Also -- and again, I could be wrong -- [spoiler]it kind of seems that Inoue's friend may have some kind of interest in her that is more than just friendship. Or at least, it could be interpreted that way. I mean, I noticed that she seems to already have a strong disliking for Ichigo, as a result of his treatment of Inoue. She seems very defensive of Inoue. But also, her clothing and everything...she almost seems quite masculine for a female. Is it just me, or does she come across as being somewhat androgynous? lol[/spoiler] I don't have a lot of experience with this type of series, so I could be barking up the wrong tree there. But that was a subtle impression that I was getting. Other than that, I really enjoyed many of the subtle elements in the episode. [spoiler]I liked the fact that the camera panned up, past Inoue's brother's picture. I almost think it'd have been better if Ichigo hadn't spelled out exactly who he was -- there were enough visual hints to make it known to the audience, without actually directly hitting us with it.[/spoiler] But that's honestly a minor complaint, in what was otherwise a very cool episode.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think it's logical to assume that the DS won't have the sound capabilities of PSP. But again, that's a comparison between apples and oranges. Remember, PSP is significantly more expensive and it is designed to play movies and MP3s as well as games. [i]However[/i], I do believe that DS will outdo Nintendo 64 in regard to sound. From what I've heard, the DS has a very crisp sound quality that soundly thrashes GBA SP (not least because it has two relatively powerful speakers, rather than one weaker mono speaker). I don't think sound will be an issue and I think that we'll probably see sound quality that is very much on-par with N64, if not superior. But to get back on topic, I think it has to be recognized that the camera system has to undergo some natural changes for various reasons. For one, you have a different control system now. Secondly, you have some situations that are going to require the camera to be more intelligent (ie: when Mario grows huge and so on). In other words, the camera is potentially dealing with things that it never had to deal with before. Having said that, I always found Mario 64's camera to be very good. In fact, I find it to be better than most new games. The only level where I had problems was the ghost house level, as Desbreko mentioned. But that level had very tight, confined spaces...and the camera could get very freaky in there. The other levels, though, really had no issues. So I'm hoping (and I'm assuming) that Nintendo will correct camera problems in that level and potentially others. Also, in regard to wall-jump...it may be necessary for Nintendo to make it easier, if only because the controls are different. I've heard nothing about it, but...I wouldn't be surprised if the action was a little more intuitive in Super Mario 64 DS (as it was in Super Mario Sunshine, when compared to Mario 64).[/color]

[color=#707875]Heh, Sephiroth's not gone...he still posts now and then. But rarely, admittedly. ~_^ You might be surprised how many older members still visit, but under different names. I often find it difficult to work out who is who, myself. If we suddenly moved back into v2 tomorrow, I think a lot of people would leave. I don't think most people remember how inactive that place was, and how incredibly spammy it was. I remember that most of the activity occurred in General Discussion (and to a lesser extent, Games & Stories). But even then, the most active threads were usually the most flame-ish ones. ~_^ G&S had a good run, but it had very few RPGs. And the best RPGs of the time are easily out-done by many of today's "lesser quality" RPGs.[/color]

[color=#707875]Here I am finally, phew! I think this is a great addition to Kill Adam. One of the things that I like about the RPG (and those who write for it), is that they are able to extend the main story and introduce so many subtleties to their characters. You are no different, Tori. Within the RPG itself, you've managed to flesh out Arianna to a great extent. Yeah, she's basically an evil killer...but she isn't without emotion. And we can see how she's been treated all her life. It makes me think that Arianna's position of power (as an Angel) is almost like her way of getting back at those who have trampled her down over all those years. You know? I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but that's definitely my impression. She's sweet one moment, viscious the next; just what an Angel should be, afterall. I also like the fact that you've developed more of a personal relationship with Adam. As you know, my intention from the start was for Lelia Angelo to be the "primary" Angel, or, in other words, to be Adam's favourite. However, Adam (like Bill) is really a pimp. Perhaps he isn't satisfied to love just one woman, or to be close to just one woman. He has an incredibly weird relationship with the Angels in that sense (he's like their lover, their father and their boss). In a funny way, Arianna is finding comfort in Adam, but at the same time, he's abusing her in a more insideous way than anyone else ever has (because at least the others were very up front about their relationship with her, whereas Adam isn't). In any case, those are all of the things that come to mind as I read your piece. It's very well written, of course, and that comes as no surprise. All in all, a strong effort. I'm definitely interested in seeing how Arianna and other characters are further fleshed out in the future.[/color]

[color=#707875]Although I'm very new to the world of fan-subs, I decided to check out Bleach's first episode today. I am really impressed. Much of the comedy seems to be typically Japanese (ie: not particularly intelligent or mature), but that doesn't matter -- it works really well. In fact, I don't think I've personally seen very many anime that have made me laugh like this (although I have only seen a fairly small amount of anime, period -- so I'm always open to suggestions ~_^). I like the fact that, although the show is fairly light-hearted in many respects (and it pokes fun at characters during even the most serious moments), it still has that serious undertone. It just seems to work incredibly well. And as everyone has mentioned, the animation is gorgeous. Very vibrant, very crisp, with some pretty interesting characters thrown into the mix. I'm also in the process of acquiring episode 2 right now. I have a feeling that I could become quite interested in this series. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Wow...that's really impressive. I really like the skin tones especially; everything looks very natural. I think you're picking up Photoshop a lot faster than I ever did (I still get frustrated, going between PSP and PS). I really think that the hands came out quite well. Somehow, there's something quite realistic about the way you've textured it (particularly the white areas of the clothing).[/color]