James

[color=#707875]I think that the media has largely boxed in Avril Lavigne. I see a lot of venomous stuff going her way, which I don't think is too fair. She's just a kid, making music. Good luck to her if she can make some money along the way, I say. In regard to punk, I have to say that I'm a bit like Manic, in that I'm not a big punk music person. But I do remember a while ago when, in a lecture, my tutor (who is a big punk fan) was talking all about the history of punk and what it meant. I think that a [i]lot[/i] of propopnents of punk music in this thread probably don't have a clue about what so-called "true punk" is. Manic's definition is probably the closest to the truth that I've seen here, I think. As a style of music, I think you could probably argue that punk has evolved. To say that current punk bands [i]aren't[/i] punk is possibly erroneous, because the whole concept of punk seems to be outdated and redundant today (especially because punk itself has become a kind of mainstream/commonly accepted genre). Once that transition occurs (as it did with rock 'n' roll and various other genres), you see a change on various levels -- in public attitudes and in the music itself. I'm sure you could probably define various newer bands as punk, regardless of whether or not they specifically fit a particular lifestyle that once existed. Maybe they don't all share that same philosophy, but perhaps we should leave room for the possibility that punk itself -- the philosophy and the music -- has evolved, because the environment that surrounds it today is very different from what it used to be. I remember my tutor saying that punk was about opposition to the status quo and that while it opposed everything mainstream (including fashion as well as music), it also never provided its own solution or answer to that problem. So it was an opposition, or a destruction...without any end goal, other than to do something that was the polar opposite of what was acceptable (ie: "disgusting" fashion versus "beautiful" fashion). Perhaps this is one reason why I was never really into punk as a genre. Again, I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, but I think that philosophically, it's not something I could be in line with, because I'm more interested in the end solution or the end change, rather than the process of opposition itself.[/color]

[color=#707875]The ironic thing is that kids who go out and attempt to be "different" are themselves feeding into a conformist stereotype. I mean, being a "goth" or whatever is far more conformist and easily-identifiable than someone who is, for lack of a better term, "normal" (and I really hesitate to use that term, but I can't think of a more suitable word at the moment). I mean, really, when you package yourself in a particular way -- especially if you follow all the hallmarks of a certain style -- you are, in essence, sending a very distinct message to everyone about yourself. Teenagers always want to develop their own identity, which is true, but at the same time, I think that people are making a mistake if they think that being a goth or a punk or whatever is somehow rebellious or different. The truth is, all of these things have become a common and easily identifiable aesthetic style, which only serves to put you in a tight little box. If you think about it, dressing "normally" (ie: not following a very particular and obvious stereotype) is far more ambiguous. And perhaps at the same time, it adds a level of mystery to you, because it becomes more difficult for others to identify you at a glance. The truth is, teenagers are mostly conformists. And most teenagers [i]want[/i] to be conformists. That is why teenagers follow various trends (fashion, music, etc). Kids just want to fit in. And that's fine -- it's natural, perhaps -- but I think that this is the perspective to use when looking at stuff like this. [/color]

[color=#707875]"help us?" You are not a staff member, Siren. ~_^ Anyway, to my knowledge, the only thing you can do as a member is to actually block PMs from someone and delete comments. Right now that's about all I can offer -- you have the power to remove comments on your own page that you might find objectionable. Other than that, we may be able to introduce a broader "blocking system", but I really can't answer that question. Only Justin knows whether or not that's feasable or not.[/color]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] I am interested in hearing more about it, just because I'm curious. But there's no way in hell I'll ever purchase this thing.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I think that your comment here really underlines something important with this machine: it isn't being aimed at you or me. The thing is, I think you'll find that Phantom is going to be targeted at non-gamers, or PC gamers who haven't considered buying a console. I know plenty of people (particularly older than myself) who are PC gamers, but who haven't touched a game console within the last two generations. One thing we have to recognize is that the entire industry is in a transitional period. The market in Japan is one example -- and that trend could easily follow to western markets, within a few years. Nintendo is trying to stay ahead of the curve by producing the DS (which will no doubt attract gamers, but which will also be targeted at non-gamers in particular). Infinium Labs is doing something similar, by creating something that isn't quite a console and not quite a PC -- a type of platform that is capable of responding to the needs of non-console gamers.[/color]

[color=#707875]Heh, there is nothing wrong with you. I've had this feeling before (not feeling good enough for someone, or feeling like you don't really have a chance with 'em). But then I realized how silly that kind of thinking is. I say that because it's really true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Everyone has a different taste. I can tell you that I've had plenty of experiences where people have either been really interested in me, or been totally indifferent. The problem is that if the other person happens to be really good looking or something, it's easy to think that you aren't worthy. ~_^ But really, if he's looking at you and showing interest, you should go for it. If he shows interest, he must be interested. ^_^ I think that this realization -- as obvious as it sounds -- really comes with experience, especially when you have a variety of people who have been interested in you over the years. Does that make sense? Anyway, good luck. [/color]

[color=#707875]The "S" is supposed to be cropped off, so don't worry. The image was always designed for the correct resolution. It wasn't a resolution issue, it was a stretching issue, related to the coding. Now the image matches the coding, basically.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think Sara made a good point there. Also, you'll notice (particularly if you have a pet) that different lighting conditions (lighting levels and colours) can radically change the appearance of your pet's eyes. Have you ever noticed the way that cat's eyes tend to glow at certain times? Obviously their eyes haven't changed -- they haven't lit up or anything, literally. But the conditions around them are creating a particular appearance. I think the same is probably true here.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think everyone plays for fun, but people experience fun and satisfaction in different ways. For example, the Gradius games can be insanely tough. And when I'm playing them (particularly if I'm continually dying), I tend to become really frustrated. At that point, if you asked if I was having fun, I might say no. However, when I actually pass a level that I've worked hard to beat...there's an immense level of satisfaction there. In many ways, I actually find a high difficulty level satisfying, particularly when I view myself inching further and further in the level. Most games do tend to have that kind of pay off. Sometimes certain things are frustrating, but you know that there will be a reward at the end (either mere progression in the game itself, or some kind of new item/object/level/etc). So I would say that people have different kinds of fun. I can only say that I play games a lot less than I used to, but I still enjoy games from time to time (Viewtiful Joe is the one that really hooked me, in recent memory - and it had plenty of challenging-yet-satisfying moments).[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, just to clarify, the banner was updated because of sizing issues. The little tag on the bottom right relates to something cool, coming on October 1st. In regard to new skins, I can only agree with everything said here. I would love to have new skins up on OB. But the people who were making skins for me seem to have disappeared, so...my skin outsourcing plan didn't quite work. lol But don't worry. OB will see new skins in due course. I'm going to have to make them myself though, I think. I haven't really been able to do this in recent times because I've always got a lot of work on my plate, much of it being pretty urgent. So poor ol' OB has suffered as a result. But I do agree that only two skins in several months is going to get pretty boring. I'm planning to keep both of these skins, but to add an all-new default skin soon. This will actually be part of something bigger (updating OtakuBoards to ver. 7.5). But I'll talk about that at some point soon.[/color]

[color=#707875]The truth is, no matter what Bush did, he would have been criticized. If he'd rushed out in a hurry, people would have claimed that he'd scared the kids. By waiting just seven minutes, people now claim he was taking too long and wasn't taking it seriously. In all honesty, the man is just not going to win. lol Even if you find someone's policies questionable, I think it's fair to say that the mud-slinging in American politics is going way too far at the moment. Bush is basically attacked like I've never seen before -- and he's largely attacked by people who simply don't (and don't want to) understand what his policies are and how they work. The most ignorant are the most vocal, in my view. Of course, every politician has things about their policies that some people don't like. You can't please everyone. But the mud-slinging that is going on is really insane, in my view. Michael Moore and others are only fuelling a bad habit. Ironically, they aren't contributing to democracy at all.[/color]

[color=#707875]This is very cool. When my old PS2 broke down, my dad bought a new Platinum PS2. But because he bought it, he tends to monopolize it. lol So I was considering buying a new one, when the price comes down. Although, I imagine this new PS2 is going to be more expensive than the current model, or at least the same price. Still, it looks great. It'd have been awesome if the original PS2 looked this sexy. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Your eyes and your hair colour are determined by genetics. As far as I know, those things are hardwired and don't change. But I'm sure that hair and eyes can look different under different circumstances. I know that with my sister, for example, her hair can look quite different under different lighting conditions. But her actual hair hasn't changed, it's just a result of lighting differences.[/color]

[color=#707875]Technically, and according to our rules, you should run a search within this thread to see if you can find something on Golden Sun (our official thread). So, please ask your game help question [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=16312&highlight=Golden"]here[/url]. Next time, please ensure that you take a look at the sticky threads and the rules page. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]I was really disappointed with Golden Sun. The visuals were gorgeous, but really, it was such a flat experience. The story was awful, the characters had no real identity or warmth and the battle system was pretty average. -.- I haven't played the sequel though, so I don't know how good that is. I haven't played FF:CC either, but it sounds like it's only really worthwhile when you have multiple players.[/color]

[color=#707875]Make sure to use the "Search This Forum" tab at the top of the page, before creating threads. That'll usually allow you to find the answer you're looking for. [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38784&highlight=group+memberships"[/url]Here you go.[/url] That thread will answer your questions.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I doubt that they'd use the SMS engine for this game. As far as I know, Nintendo haven't used that particular engine for anything other than SMS. I'm not a tennis fan at all, and I would hate for this game to be realistic in terms of its representation of tennis. I'd find that incredibly boring. However, I love the fact that the game seems to combine certain realistic elements with totally crazy, fantasy elements. I am particularly fond of that old school Mario screenshot...that level looks like it could be wonderful. This is one of the Mario sports titles that I might actually buy. [/color]

[color=#707875]I think this topic brings up several really good points. Playboy has missed the boat in some respects, based on those comments. It's true that the average age of gamers is moving up. But the thing is, a lot of gamers who are older (in their 20s and 30s) are not necessarily new to gaming itself; many of them were playing games like Super Mario Bros. when they were new and many were also playing the older Atari consoles too. One of the concerns I have, when looking at this whole thing objectively, is that as more and more companies try to "cater to adults", less companies are going to be producing games that cater to all ages. People often bash Nintendo for being "family friendly". But let's not forget that there is a difference between a game for "all ages" and a game for kids. It's like comparing, say, Yoshi's Story to Super Mario Sunshine. Yoshi's Story was basically a kid's game. I enjoyed it, but it was obviously designed for people who are very new to gaming. SMS, on the other hand, has some insanely difficult moments, which little kids just aren't going to be able to do. Yet at the same time, it features a light hearted aesthetic style and it's definitely very easy to jump into, regardless of your age. It's the kind of game where I think anyone can play. A kid can run around Delfino Isle and perform the more basic things, while their parents can do the difficult stages. That's the kind of game I enjoy, because the spectrum of players is so wide. And then if you look at, say, Zelda...you have a game where younger people can play, but compared to Mario, it's a game that is going to require slightly more skill. At the same time, it's still something that anyone can really jump into, because it's so intuitive. I tend to bring up Nintendo as an example because I think that their philosophy is a good one. You [i]can[/i] be successful if you make a variety of games. You can still have your Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime, while also having Yoshi's Story and Kirby. There's room for everyone. One of the interesting things is that I don't think sex has really been used effectively in a game I've seen so far. I mean, I am a fan of the Leisure Suit Larry games, so...in that sense, I think it was used well (though crudely). But what I mean is, I haven't really seen a game that uses sex in a tasteful or intelligent way. So who knows. I don't think it's terribly important, because I would probably be happier to see games without too much sexual content. But that's just a personal preference. In general, I agree with what everyone is saying about mature versus adult. A game like Leisure Suit Larry -- with its wafer-thin story, crude jokes and silly humor -- might be considered adult. Ultimately, there's nothing "mature" about it; it's an excuse for toilet humor and sexual themes. On the other hand, a game like Silent Hill might be considered "mature", because it deals with some very heavy issues (religious cults and so on) in an intelligent and creative way -- it also requires a certain level of maturity to be able to understand and appreciate it.[/color]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]See, the thing is, I don't think anyone was directly comparing the character design of Vincent to that of Dante. Dante and Vincent really look very little alike in general. I don't recall anyone giving the impression that Vincent was somehow a ripoff in terms of character design. What is being compared is the overall look of the game, and in the first few shots given, I think a DMC comparison was rather apt. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Several people in this very thread have made that comparison. lol You didn't, that's true. But I never mentioned you, in that regard. But fundamentally it's a general comparison that I view as being totally moot, for various reasons (some of which I listed in my last post, and some you've mentioned in this latest post). Like I said before, I think the experience of people making immediate assumptions (particularly negative) about a game that they know nothing about, is something that annoys me. It's the kind of thing where people start to build up a whole idea about the game, based on either the wrong information, or mere assumptions that are baseless. It'd be nice, just once, to see gamers have an open mind and just see what comes, rather than immediately trying to degrade a new game simply because the company who developed it also develops poor action games (which this game may or may not be) and because the game happens to have some very vague aesthetic similarities to Devil May Cry.[/color]

[QUOTE=Siren] I'm simply considering what we [i]have[/i] been given here: the game is going to be third-person perspective. It features Vincent from FFVII. Vincent uses guns. He is a gothic character. The game is supposedly an action game. It's coming out on PS2.[/quote] [color=#707875]Supposedly action? Again, there's no source or reference for that. lol We don't know the genre and Square-Enix hasn't mentioned it. We have no video nor any playable software to make our judgement on. We [i]only[/i] have screenshots. So, like I mentioned before, this game could play like DMC, or it might play like Jet Set Radio, or it might play like Space Channel 5 or god knows what else. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration, but, third person visuals and guns don't necessarily dictate the gameplay genre -- they only really influence the visual style (and we've already seen Vincent in third person, with a gun in Final Fantasy VII, which was an RPG and not an action title.)[/color][quote=Siren] Unless Square-Enix totally revamps his character, giving him a daisy and a sack of hugs, and placing him smack-dab in the middle of a flowered meadow full of posies, I don't think the immediate comparisons to DMC are all that ridiculous, really. Yes, it's incredibly early and all, and we do have very, very minute details about the game, but the info we do have could certainly point to at least a DMC-esque entry.[/quote] [color=#707875]But don't you see how that makes absolutely no sense? lol What are you really judging it on? You're judging it based on how Vincent looks. But as I've frequently pointed out, Vincent was around long before Dante. Yet nobody was comparing DMC to Final Fantasy VII. You simply can't base your assumption of the game's genre based on the aesthetic of the main character. Vincent is an established character, he didn't just arrive yesterday. He is not mimmicking Dante. Any comparison between Dante and Vincent is purely coincidental at this point.[/color] [quote=Siren]Based on what we've seen/read here, it seems certainly possible, and everyone does have their assessment of the actual DMC series, so it's only natural that those assessments would affect their reaction to Vincent May Cry, since what we've read about Dirge of Cerberus could certainly point to a DMC starring Vincent. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]What have we read about it that bears any relationship to DMC? lol. Nothing. There's nothing at all about the game that indicates that, on any substantive basis. The only thing that even remotely hints at it is the third person, the gun and the look of Vincent. But again, Vincent was around long before Dante. And there are many third person games in many genres. Sheesh. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, playing mod will really get you on my bad side. There are a few members here who would make wonderful Moderators -- and I've considered hiring them -- but they play mod and that just ruins it for me. I don't want people who run around telling others what to do when they're members. I try to choose people who are simply "good members" and I base my decision on that primarily. Knowing the rules like the back of your hand -- and being able to snap at members -- is definitely much lower on the list as far as I'm concerned. The rules themselves are incredibly simple, so I think that anyone can understand them, even if their post quality is poor. It's not so much the technical rules, as much as it is things like post quality and behavior. So yeah, I tend to look for Moderators specifically, when I need them. If your post quality is outstanding and if you're a nice, courteous member, you will have the best possible chance of being hired. It all comes down to your behavior and whether or not I need more staff. So I never actually have public announcements about hiring.[/color]

[QUOTE=Charles]When discussing doubt being cast on the game, the primary fault with raising an example such as Wind Waker is that you're comparing a reliable company to a mediocre one, as it were. Concerning Zelda, hardcore fans could find solace in the fact that whether they agreed with the new direction or not, they could hold confidence in knowing that the developers decided on the artistic standpoint they did for the good of the product. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]There's nothing that is really more medicore about Square-Enix than Nintendo, though. I mean...let's be clear about it. We're talking about Square's action games having a poor track record. But we don't even know what format this game will be. We really [i]don't[/i] know if it'll be anything like Devil May Cry, or whether it'll be closer to Vagrant Story, or something entirely different. So that's the basis I'm using. We just don't know. So it's too early to even assume that we can compare it to Square-Enix's previous action titles. I think that the comparision between Wind Waker and this game works, for one simple reason: I'm not comparing the companies, or even the games themselves. I'm comparing the public reaction to change. In the case of Wind Waker, it was a reaction to a new visual style. In the case of Dirge of Cerberus, it's a reaction to a perceived change in genre or style (an action game versus an RPG that we might have otherwise expected). My only point is that we should reserve judgement. I didn't like the early judgements with Wind Waker, and I don't like them with any game. I don't mean to imply that we should be ultra-excited about this game and that it's going to be wonderful, I'm only saying that I don't know a thing about it. And neither does anyone else. Right now we just have a few screenshots, which show almost nothing of fundamental significance. We honestly don't even know the genre, so it's like basing an analysis on just the title alone or something. In regard to what vegeta rocker just said, again, I have no idea why you would even attempt to compare this game to DMC at this stage. Because it's third person and Vincent looks dark and brooding, a bit like Dante? I mean, really, how would one even begin to assume that this game has any relationship with DMC? (Whether in gameplay system or otherwise). By that basis I could probably knock DMC for copying Vincent's design with Dante. But as we know, DMC and FFVII are vastly different games. Whether or not this game is good, whether or not it's a DMC clone, or whatever, I'm only saying that we should wait to reserve judgement. It's fair not to have great expectations based on Square's previous action games, but we don't even know if this is in the same genre. So it's a bit difficult to draw that link.[/color]

[quote name='SemjazaAzazel']I'm personally selling this short based on Square's history. What do I need to know? That they've made a total of two decent action games in their history? All that come to mind are Einhander and Tobal (Tobal being made by some other studio).[/quote] [color=#707875]I agree with what you're saying there. The only thing I'd say is that we don't even know if this is an action game. We literally know nothing about the gameplay. So all I'm saying is that, as with games like Wind Waker and others, I personally don't want to assume anything at this point. A lot of people are going to make assumptions about it before anything is revealed. I'm pretty much just going to follow the developments and see what happens. I'm not actually optimistic about it as such, I'm just reserving judgement at this point. In my comments, I was mostly referring to vegeta rocker's post. I mean...there's just so much wrong with that. lol The comparisons with Dante/Devil May Cry are automatic, perhaps, but right now I view them as totally ridiculous. Vincent (and his design) came along prior to Dante. We've seen a few shots and we know about a basic theme and that's it -- there's absolutely no reason to suggest that this is simply a Devil May Cry rip-off or something. The fact is, we just don't know.[/color]

[color=#707875]I can tell you right now that the controls in Vice City weren' vastly improved over GTAIII. In fact, many of the more fundamental issues hadn't been touched. There was only one thing about Vice City that I really felt they changed for the better (in terms of control): diving out of the car while moving. I can't tell you how useful that feature is. It's so incredibly important in Vice City during certain times. It really helps. In terms of visuals, I think that Vice City has a great aesthetic design, but many of the complaints about graphics are valid. Character models -- particularly NPCs -- often seem to be a little deformed. Animation is very stiff in many places and even the trees are like pieces of cardboard. The problem, I think, is not so much related to a lack of self-shadowing and reflections and things like that. I think the problem lies more in the behavioral aspects, like animation. So I think both sides can probably lay claim to certain issues.[/color]

[color=#707875]Vice City's an interesting one. On the one hand, I'm inclined to suggest that it was overrated, at least to some degree. On the other, it is in some ways quite a remarkable achievement. I mean, they essentially completed the game (from start to finish) within the space of a year. Even though it uses the GTAIII engine and even though they really only performed a visual change (with some minor gameplay edits), such a feat is pretty impressive. Although I tend to complain that Vice City is really more like an expansion pack than a true sequel, I still enjoy the game and I do find it to be an impressive achievement, given the time frame of its development. I think that San Andreas could be overrated, but I view San Andreas as being a potentially "newer" game than Vice City. What I mean is, I think it will feel like a bigger evolution of the franchise, when compared to GTAIII versus Vice City. I've read a great deal about the game and I find the level of detail to be pretty amazing. While it's true that individual elements often leave a lot to be desired, in comparison with other games (ie: character models and individual objects), we have to bear in mind that GTA is rendering an enormous universe -- a world that most games aren't rendering in one go. The fact that San Andreas will be able to render significantly [i]more[/i] than GTAIII or Vice City -- and still look a lot nicer visually -- is quite impressive in and of itself. Let's just hope that the game doesn't experience any major slowdown or anything. I somehow feel that GTA is starting to really push at the limits of what PlayStation 2 is capable of doing.[/color]

[color=#707875]This is a very cool effort for a first banner. I would have to agree with Panda; a little more practice with cropping/blending and you should be doing really well. And text is a tricky thing, because it's difficult to make it display properly (especially dark text on a dark background). But again, getting that right just comes through practice. I think this is very good for a first effort; a lot better than I could have done my first time 'round.[/color]