James

[quote name='lava lamp']You're stupid. [/quote] [color=#707875]Watch the insults. If you guys want to continue discussing this, that's fine...but if you can't be civil to one another, you won't be permitted to post here.[/color]

[color=#707875]Just to reiterate what Solo and Dagger have said, I want to make a few points before this thread continues. 1) As mentioned, no pornographic images are to be posted here. Anyone who attempts this will be permanently banned immediately. 2) Nobody is to provide links in this thread to download Hentai. The first point about that is simply that we want to offer [i]some [/i]protection to children; nobody should be able to access adult material through any of our sites. And secondly, if you're downloading it without paying for it, you are [b]stealing[/b]. I cannot underline this point enough. I know that people "download anime episodes", but if I see [i]anyone [/i]making any attempt to link to such material on here, they will be banned without question. We want to support artists rather than steal from them -- and in a broader sense, illegal downloading is by definition unacceptable here. 3) I don't mind if you guys discuss Hentai, but please be aware that you're on a site that does have some restrictions in terms of language use and so on. Despite the nature of the discussion, I don't think it will be necessary to actually post anything explicit on here, whether we're talking about images [i]or [/i]descriptions. Let's keep it as clean as possible, given the subject matter (and so far, most of you seem to be doing the right thing, which is fine). I just want to make those points in the strongest possible terms. If everyone follows these guidelines, I don't mind allowing the discussion to go ahead.[/color]

[color=#707875]When you talk about shovelware for Game Boy Color, I think it's a bit tough to compare that directly to DS. I say that because the GBC only added colour visuals to the screen; so there wasn't anything fundamentally different about the gameplay in most GBC games, versus their black and white counterparts. DS is obviously a different story, because it's a fundamentally new type of game system. I think it's obvious that there are going to be some developers who won't support the machine to its fullest extent. But this is no different to developers who support Xbox Live or something like that -- most developers will probably do the right thing, and some will be content to push a few games through that don't really demonstrate anything different. For its part, Nintendo has already said that developers who aren't interested in using the DS's new features in games will be urged to develop for GBA SP instead. I think that seems logical enough. Nintendo has "reserved" DS for new types of games...and considering their strong showing at E3 (and the way it's convinced even the most critical of media), I don't have any concern about that. It's just a shame that you guys weren't able to get the thing in your hands and see what all the fuss was about. I think that when you actually do sit down and play the system, you'll be quite surprised. It's true that it really has to be played to be understood. And just to add to that for a moment, you can't really compare the DS's dual screen function with GameCube/GBA connectivity. Obviously there are massive differences; the sheer cost of establishing a GCN/GBA connectivity setup is significantly higher and less "user friendly" than what you get with DS. Obviously, fewer developers were prepared to fully support connectivity because of these concerns. If your game [i]relies [/i]on people needing GBAs as controllers, you are severely limiting your audience. This is something that has limited connectivity from day one. The DS is a completely different proposition, because the technology is [i]there [/i]in the unit itself. You don't need to buy a microphone peripheral, or a wireless adapter or anything -- it's all there right in the machine. That may not seem like much, but I guarantee you, that changes the development environment completely. The contrast is like day and night. The hardware itself is also designed to work in tandem. So the two screens are intrinsically linked, both by gameplay design and by hardware function. So, I don't really think that any of these concerns are warranted, when we get right down to it. If your concerns about DS remind you of connectivity...then I think you can only be pleasantly surprised by the end result, when the time comes. EDIT: *gasp* Here we are, talking about DS in the PSP thread...again. lol Let's try and get back to PSP-based discussion (either PSP itself or PSP comparisons with DS or whatever). Actually, I've been meaning to respond to some of the complaints about PSP...but I'll do that later. I've done enough typing here at the moment. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]I only saw Bowling for Columbine recently, which I enjoyed. I think it's the kind of documentary that every American needs to see, because the whole gun ownership thing is a very cancerous part of American society. And I think that the documentary is very compelling in that sense. [i]However[/i], Moore radically spins things when it comes to discussions about defense contractors. His blanket statements about American involvement in previous wars didn't tell the whole story, or even part of the story. So that was obvious from a mile away. Regarding Farenheit 9/11...I read your spoilers, Syk3 and I can tell you right now, I can sit here and pick a million holes in those points. Why? Not because they're outright wrong (in some cases), but because they only show one side of the truth -- the side that Moore is aligned to. Unfortunately, if one were to consider much of this "evidence" as cold-hard fact...one would only be getting a very limited view of the complexities of the world. I think that Moore is a very dishonest film maker. Whereas Bowling for Columbine was generally a very honest film (perhaps more honest than even Moore would normally be comfortable with), what I've read about Farenheit 9/11 (and even the premise of it), is anything but. So that kind of "selective presentation of the truth" is a problem, I think. In any case, I'll definitely check it out when it's available here...in fact, I think it might even be out now. So yeah, when I see it I'll post my thoughts -- and I'd be interested to read what others have to say about it.[/color]

[color=#707875]I haven't had this problem in a long, long time...possibly years. That's because I don't allow people to search for me and I don't set myself as "available for chat". If you go to Edit Profile and uncheck those two options, you should be 100% fine. People can still IM you if they get your name, but you won't get all that random crap.[/color]

[color=#707875]I generally [i]really [/i]dislike war films, even good war films. lol So, that's probably a good thing, because this movie can possibly serve to change that point of view. It's great to see that it'll be out this year, too. I'm actually glad that Kill Bill was released in two volumes, rather than one condensed film, because I think it gave me something to look forward to (ie: a few months of waiting for Volume II's cinema debut). And now that another Tarantino movie is arriving by the end of the year, it gives me something else to watch out for. I've also been doing a bit of trailer-hunting lately...I downloaded the trailers for Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. I'd never seen anything about Reservoir Dogs before, so the trailer was very welcome...it gives me even more incentive to go out there and find the DVD. ~_^ Has anyone here seen Jackie Brown? I'm interested to know what people's opinions are on that, because I think it looks like a really fun movie (but I have yet to see it).[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, if you took a look at Meggido's thread in Otaku Lounge...I think you'll see a good example of both newer and more well-established members "playing mod". But not only playing mod...also being blatantly rude. There's just [i]no [/i]reason for anyone to post a kind of "we don't want you here" message. That just goes against everything OtakuBoards stands for. As I mentioned in the thread, all of those people who expressed that kind of sentiment in their post are one step closer to a ban -- if I see that kinda thing again, I won't hesitate to take action against those members. So, I don't think that your concerns are unfounded. This should hopefully serve as a reminder that members (and staff) don't have to tolerate rudeness like that.[/color]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi][color=teal]Funny that you made the comparison to The Matrix. QT was told that the scene where The Bride massacres The Crazy 88 was very similar to Neo's fight with the horde of Smith's. I don't think he can emphasize enough that Kill Bill was inspired mostly by Hong Kong cinema and had absolutely nothing to do with The Matrix. Also, the fact that every member of The Crazy 88 wore black suits, just as the Smith's do, shouldn't make The Matrix open for discussion anyway. QT said that when he thinks of the black suits, he thinks Reservoir Dogs (Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Orange, etc), he thinks Pulp Fiction (Vincent and Jules). Don't know about Jackie Brown, heh, sorry. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I wouldn't compare The Matrix and Kill Bill [i]at all [/i]in terms of saying that the two are similar. They aren't. They are 100% different from one another. That is precisely why I mentioned The Matrix; to use it as a basis from which to describe how Kill Bill provides something different (since The Matrix has really already established many "traditions" for fight scenes in movies). So yeah, it was about a point of difference...not a similarity. Oh and...Mexian stand-offs are great, agreed. ~_^ You got the banner thing right, too. I'd have made it longer, but I couldn't be bothered. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]You're absolutely right about the comedy, I think. It's the kind of thing that you'll either appreciate, or not understand. In regard to Kill Bill specifically, I had heard about how violent it was before I went and saw it. And to some degree it surprised me, but not simply because it was violent. There was something about the violence that was different from, say, The Matrix. With The Matrix, you have this gorgeous choreography and beautiful movements of the body...it's very artistic and anime-esque. But Kill Bill is a much heavier, grittier type of action...in the sense that you get the feeling that every punch [i]really hurts[/i]. lol The first fight in Kill Bill is particularly like that, for me. The thud when they land on the floor never ceases to get my heart racing. It's just...cool. It grabs your attention, it [i]feels [/i]realistic. And yet at the same time, the fights generally have that weird, camp quality to them (particularly the GoGo fight, as well as the Crazy 88 fight). In the end it creates something that is less about violence and more about artistry, in my opinion. The Crazy 88 fight looked particularly difficult to film and considering that Tarantino had never done an action movie before...I think he's shown that he can handle action brilliantly well. And of course, nobody can ignore the work that Kill Bill is based on. I think that plays an important role, because then it's not just a matter of saying "He did it because he could"; it becomes a question of how true he is to the subject matter on which the movie is based. And it really becomes a genre study I guess. There's so much more to say about Kill Bill though, in terms of the violence. Same goes for all of the other movies. I think Pulp Fiction definitely has that dark humor undertone to everything it does, at least in terms of the violent content. There's also a kind of..."hyper-realism" to the violence in that movie, you know what I mean? It's hard to describe though. I remember Tarantino saying that Kill Bill is a movie that the characters in his [i]other [/i]movies might see, should they visit a cinema. Kill Bill is a "hyper-hyper-reality", at least according to Tarantino. And Pulp Fiction itself is almost like a comic book version of reality, at least in a mild sense. I kind of feel like I've twisted around in a circle there, so I hope that makes sense. lol By the way, Yoshi, do you like my new signature? I thought I'd jump from Kill Bill to Pulp Fiction. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I've only seen Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers. But even if you've only seen just one of these films -- and if you've analysed it to some degree -- I think you can draw a conclusion about the violence in them. And obviously, there's no blanket conclusion; each film uses it differently. So yeah, I haven't seen all of his movies, but I'm able to comment on the ones I [i]have [/i]seen. By all means though, it's good to have as rounded a knowledge as you can about the subject matter. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi][color=teal]I think that what I've rendered above fits conclusively, but part of it doesn't prove its own point to me. It was Marcellus who ordered Vincent to take his wife Mia out, meaning that Marcellus put his wife's hands in the temporary possession of a man who's not with God -- why would he do that? Maybe he was unaware of the consequences that awaited him, therefore paying them by suffering at the hands of the rapists... I'm still a bit weary on that subject. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well, at that point Vincent is with God. Like we've pretty much established, he and Jules were "doing God's work". This was before he essentially turned down the concept of divine intervention and everything that goes along with that. But like I mentioned before - specifically in regard to the briefcase - I think that I'm definitely aligned with your theories about it, given what I've read elsewhere by so-called "Pulp Fiction experts". Although I do feel that many of these theories are overestimating the deliberate intent of the movie, there is [i]definitely [/i]quite a lot of merit to many of 'em. I'd be interested to hear your take on the violence in Tarantino's films too (Pulp Fiction or otherwise). I'll let Alex respond to your spoilered stuff, since I think it's worthy of a more detailed, point-by-point analysis.[/color]

[color=#707875]I fixed it for you. You forgot to add "www." to the start of the site's URL. Also, I recommend that you take note of your post quality (puntucation, capital letters), just to make your posts a bit clearer to read. I found your first and second PM to be a little confusing for that reason. It's just something to watch, is all. To make your avatar work, you only have to upload it by going to "Edit Avatar". It's pretty easy, but you have to ensure that your custom avatar meets the size requirements (if it's too large or takes up too much memory it won't be accepted by the software). ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I've been following this discussion...I'm a bit late to this, so please bear with me. Also, I've only seen Pulp Fiction 1.5 times. lol Anyway, regarding the briefcase thing first. I think it has to be said that Quentin Tarantino hadn't ever specified what was actually in the briefcase. As far as I know, he had said something along the lines of "whatever you want it to be". To me, this suggests that he may never have specifically sat down and consciously thought "Okay, here's what's in the case but I'm not telling anyone". [i]However[/i], among all the theories I've seen, I think the soul theory is the most plausible. These are the basic points that I've noticed, in reading discussions about this particular theory: 1) The band-aid on the back of Marsellus's head and the connection with the soul being removed from this spot. I haven't read the bible passage (and I don't know if it's even from the bible itself), but I think it's plausible enough, especially given the other factors. 2) Marsellus had sold his soul to the devil and he wanted it back. He sent Vincent and Jules to get it. They came across the three guys in the apartment, who were the "devil's helpers". Notice how the bullets missed Jules and this led Jules to believe that it was an act of God? Perhaps God showed mercy because Jules and Vincent were doing his work (ie: [i]literally [/i]saving a soul). 3) The "gold factor". Notice the golden glow that comes from the biefcase? And notice the gold that appears in the corner of the screen when Jules and Vincent shoot one of the guys in the apartment? Perhaps that signifies that his soul is leaving his body. 4) The "666" code is used [i]both [/i]on the briefcase and on the alarm in Mia's house. Having said the above though, I do want to stress that I don't necessarily agree that Marsellus's soul is actually what's in the briefcase. I think it's most likely that "we aren't supposed to know because Tarantino himself doesn't know". But, out of all the ideas I've heard, the soul one is the most plausible to me. In regard to the violence issue...I'll respond to that later, when my fingers aren't so tired from typing (posting on OB with a million AIM windows open is never fun ~_^). EDIT: Before I go, did anyone here know that [spoiler]Mia and Vincent did not actually win the trophy in the twist competition? They stole it. I found that pretty interesting. ~_^[/spoiler] EDIT 2: Okay, well...nobody's posted in the last day, so I might as well continue my post now. ~_^ Alex mentioned violence in Tarantino movies. And I think it's safe to say that Tarantino uses violence as his main subject matter. But if you look at movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill in particular, I think you get the sense that the violence isn't just there for no reason. With Pulp Fiction, I remember Tarantino actually saying that the film wasn't an endorsement of violence. In fact, Pulp Fiction demonstrates some of the consequences for violence, in ways that "less realistic" films may not. In the case of Jules...he's kind of rewarded for "turning away from a life of crime and violence". But Vincent doesn't do that, and he's killed as a result. It seems to be a very stark contrast in terms of how each character ends up. And with Mia, you could say that when she snorts heroin, she's being taught a lesson about careless drug-taking. I remember when I saw that part of the movie, I actually thought to myself "Wow, that'll discourage [i]anyone [/i]from taking drugs". Violence is also a big issue in Natural Born Killers, which I didn't particularly enjoy. The movie deliberately glorifies violence, but does so in a way that actually insults mainstream society and its treatment of violence. When you see members of the public who actually seem to worship the serial-killers...and treat them like celebrities, you get a sense that something isn't quite right. The more violent scenes are punctuated with cartoon sequences, to avoid suspension of disbelief...to make you stand back from the carnage on screen and think about it rationally. Black and white sequences are also used in that same way. So, I think talking about the violence and what it means is a good idea with Tarantino films. People like Bob Dole who say that he's just obsessed with killing...I think that's an over-simplification. Violence [i]isn't [/i]violence, as such -- we've seen, with Tarantino's films, that violence can be treated and assessed in a multitude of ways.[/color]

[color=#707875]We set the parameters by which the software operates, but the software does that itself. ^_^[/color]

[quote name='Meggido']The 1st and formost of my problems is the fact that no one takes care of the newbies. On my other forum they have a thread called "adopt a newbie" where older members take of a newbie and teach them the basics of the site. This is including the site FAQs which are confusing to understand on this site. I have been called illiterate and i'm sure it could have happened to other people.[/quote][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]You're right in the sense that we don't have an "adopt a newbie" program. But you have to understand that we are a very specific kind of site; we are not interested in sitting down and going through a lengthy process where we teach everyone how to behave here. Not only is that a difficult thing to do for a site this large, but it should also be a moot point, because we want to attract people who are [i]already [/i]behaving in a desirable way at the very start. So, you could say that our "target audience" consists of people who want civil, intelligent discussion and a friendly atmosphere. So we shape our rules around that concept. This does mean that we aren't very forgiving of people with awful post quality, but we can't afford to be. Ultimately we have to serve the audience that we've chosen to attract.[/color] [quote=Meggido] Secondly. What's the deal with punctuation? Punctuation is something people should only have to worry about in school or work. I was called illiterate because of the reason that i cannot be bothered tapping the shift key or the caps key everytime a capital letter is needed. The Australian forum i use only worries about punctuation in terms of full stops and possibly commas. They also don't bag a person for not using appropriate punctuation.[/quote][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]What you've mentioned here is a really critical point; you can't be bothered tapping the shift key. I'm not trying to bag you -- and I hope nobody is -- I'm just trying to explain to you that OtakuBoards is a site for people who [i]can [/i]be bothered typing the shift key. It's for people who [i]want [/i]to be bothered. Do you see what I mean? That's really the target audience we have here. But having said that, I want to be very clear about something. We do not expect everyone to have perfect grammar and spelling. The quality of this post of yours is totally fine and acceptable for OtakuBoards. So I don't see any problem there. If you feel that someone has been unfairly attacking you for no reason, then by all means, feel free to bring up that issue with me via PM. Although we have rules and standards, there is [i]no excuse [/i]for staff or other members to be rude to newbies. That's not what we're about. But this does not mean that newbies can get away with ignoring the way the site is set up. You are agreeing to our rules when you register -- so you've made that agreement. If you want to post here, you obviously have to follow that agreement. Staff will remind you of this and they will help you if you need it. But if someone has been unfair or rude to you, that's also unacceptable. Yes, we like a tightly run site...but no, we have no interest in making people feel like crap for no reason.[/color] [quote=Meggido] Thirdly. Topic headings. Myself and probably others will post on threads under what a topic heading asks. If a thread has a heading asking about RPG's, i will post about RPGs on any system. i should not have my posts deleted because of this reason and this site has an edit tool unlike the other forum. If a post of mine does not cover the intended topic then i should be notified by a PM rather than having someone put a post up about it that everyone will see and then have a moderator going to the extreme of deleting the post. I should get a chance to fix what is in the post. People would have less confusion if there was a section for each company, i.e. nintendo or sony. This would at least mean i knew what system i was posting for rather than taking a guess because i only read the two or three posts before the one i will add if the topic seems clear enough to understand.[/quote][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]Let's be really serious here; there's nothing "extreme" about deleting a post. If your post is off topic, you'll either be asked to get back on topic, or it'll be deleted. So what? If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. If you don't want posts to be deleted, then you have to ensure that they're kept on topic. Obviously, it's always important to consider what the actual topic is about. If the topic is about RPGs in general, then that's great -- you can talk about RPGs in general. If it's about RPGs for PlayStation 2, then that's great -- you can talk about RPGs on PlayStation 2. I don't know what the confusion is there. But if there [i]is [/i]confusion, you can always as the Moderators to clarify the rules via PM. Or, you can use the Suggestions/Feedback forum to ask about it. Regarding the second part of your complaint, we have used a sticky thread to explain how the Play It forum works. If the topic is about a specific game...then it's [i]about that game[/i], regardless of whether the game is on PS2/Xbox/GameCube, etc. Some games are multi-platform. If you're in the Soul Calibur II thread, for example, you can talk about [i]any [/i]version of that game. If you are unsure about what the thread relates to...there are two indicators. Firstly there's the thread title itself (which will either list a generic name like "evolution of the platformer" or a specific game title like "super mario sunshine") and then there is the first post. The first post should give you all the information you need. Remember, we're expecting members on OtakuBoards to demonstrate some level of quality in their discussions. So, it's not just about leaping into a thread and posting something -- it's about reading what others have to say, and knowing what the subject matter is. If you don't enjoy that, or if it feels like too much effort, OtakuBoards may not be the place for you. That's all it comes down to really.[/color] [quote=Meggido] Because of these reasons i will not be seen on this site for a month in hope that these problems will be fixed.[/QUOTE][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]I don't consider these issues to be problems -- I consider these issues to be a matter of personal taste. Believe me, we've gone through great lengths to streamline the site and design it so that it targets a very specific audience. Obviously, we come across quite a few people who are uncomfortable with that. If you fit into that group, then that's okay -- you tried OB and you didn't like it. No problem. But this isn't going to actually invoke a fundamental change in the site's direction. We have been striving to reach higher and higher quality for several years now; we're not about to stop. But by all means, if we can make the rules any easier to understand, or if you feel that you've been treated unfairly by someone, you can [i]always [/i]talk to me about it. I'm more than happy to listen to complaints like that, and I'm more than happy to deal with people who are doing the wrong thing at the site. EDIT: To those of you who were rude to Meggido in this thread...you are all one step closer to being banned. That's not the kind of attitude I want to see on the site, considering that Megiddo didn't sit there and flame all of you -- he simply complained about the boards. Please bear that in mind.[/color]

[color=#707875]As far as I know, you do need to post 20 times to be listed on the site's member list. This is just to ensure that erronous members (people who join and never post) aren't put on there automatically. So if you stick around and post a bit, you'll be listed on there in no time.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yep, I think we're now getting right to the core of the issue. This also reminds me of the discussion about "faking it" -- what people will do to fit in to society's norms. I would say that generally, society's laws are based on certain extremes of "moral/immoral" behavior. Generally, laws are based on behavior that hurts or negatively impacts someone else. Whereas in personal morals, there's a lot more leeway because you're talking about things that don't necessarily break the law as such...it just comes down to what you or I would find tolerable in our personal lives. Anyway, I fear that we're straying a bit here...lol. In terms of how this relates to losing friends over religion, I think I may have been trying to draw the link between these two issues, by saying that it comes down to how important religion is to someone (and therefore, how important they think it is for others to be aligned to their beliefs in their daily life). But that's not something I can answer...I mean, like I said before, I have my own views about it. And I have my own standards or expecations when it comes to friends and other people have theirs. *shrug*[/color]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The price is something that can be adjusted whenever, so that's not really a way to predict a system's failure. I myself am nervous about what price point Sony is aiming at, and it's true that an initial too-high price that is immediately followed by a price drop is worse than an initial just-right price. But Sony knows that too. Battery life, well that is a different issue altogether. And there's not enough information on that to make any judgements/predictions.[/quote] [color=#707875]Well, the price [i]can't [/i]be adjusted whenever. Price is determined by a number of factors. Sony will set a price that is as reasonable as they can afford, given the costs involved in manufacturing (which will be significantly higher than DS). Right now we don't know the price, so it's a moot point -- I'm just pointing out that price plays a critical role in consumer purchasing decisions. There's plenty of information to make judgements about battery life, though. First and foremost, Sony have already set targets/expectations about what battery life will be like (I read that it was something like 2 to 8 hours?) In other words, even they don't [i]really [/i]know. Chances are that it could fall somewhere in between, depending on what kind of functions you're using. We can assume, if you are playing a game and you have sound and lighting going at the same time, that battery life will be relatively poor (relatively, in comparison to other hardware on the market, like DS or GBA). So again, that plays a critical role. I'm not attempting to make some kind of verdict about it, I'm just saying that these are all important considerations for Sony.[/color] [quote=ScirosDarkblade] Yes, a redesign is crucial. Personally, I'm concerned about how they'll take into account left-handed folk like me when it comes to using the stylus. The buttons on the right can be a redundant control pad, but still I'd have to really "relearn" how to play Mario and Metroid and what not, which is poo.[/quote] [color=#707875]I think that it depends on how the games themselves are structured. I doubt we'll see any Mario games in the traditional sense (as in, most games will be using the newer features, rather than the traditional ones). But you never know. The biggest concern I have is actually holding the thing, while using the stylus. That was a sticking point for some in the media, and nobody really had the chance to try it out, because the machines were stuck down and it was not possible to pick them up and play with them at E3.[/color] [quote=ScirosDarkblade] Heh, don't let Nintendo's numbers fool you. That "growth" is Gamecube selling better than it used to, sure, and Xbox/PS2 not (or selling worse), but there are still more PS2s sold even now than there are Gamecubes. Nintendo saying they're driving industry growth as far as sales go is equivalent to them saying "Sony's not kicking our *** quite as much as they did a year ago or two years ago." Sony's still kicking their *** though.[/quote] [color=#707875]Don't worry, you're talking to someone who has been involved in the gaming media for several years now. I generally know how the numbers break down. ~_^ Sony's overall numbers are better. But Sony isn't experiencing accelerating growth; their market share has hit a plateau. And yet, this isn't a sign of the market not accepting new hardware -- that is, it's not a sign that people are no longer buying consoles. You also have to factor in Xbox's performance with those numbers as well (and Xbox hasn't sold nearly as well as PlayStation 2). Sony has tried to suggest that their hardware sales results are the result of fan overall market slump. If that were true, Nintendo would also be affected. And they aren't. The broader point that I'm making is simply that right now, GameCube is driving industry growth. There are also all of the other factors (including manufacturing cost, software production cost, etc etc), but I could write an essay about that; I'll avoid doing so here, because it's getting significantly off topic.[/color] [quote=ScirosDarkblade] If by industry growth you mean innovation, getting more developers to do cool stuff, etc., then I can't argue with you. But if you're talking about sales, then Nintendo still has a long way to go to catch up with Sony. "Industry growth," heh. It's optimism is what it is.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I wasn't referring to innovation, but innovation will still play a big part of it. Sales numbers alone won't give you the answer. I've spoken about that before. Sales numbers are very flat, two dimensional things -- and each of the big three hardware makers even calcuate their numbers in different ways. Sony can tell you that they've sold more PlayStation 2 units overall, but that isn't telling you about software sales growth, nor are we factoring in issues like piracy and other elements that eat into a company's revenue results. I know that's getting a bit off track, but I think it does relate back to this central question. Now we just have to continue relating this to PSP, and we'll be fine. ~_^[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Then I was simply not clear enough. I don't mean across multiple societies. I mean within a society (granted, to a certain level, as most societies allow for its people to adhere to some level of moral relativism). The thing is, a society has laws and moral standards (de facto and de jure) that make moral relativism on any "big" scale, well, moot. ... Within lawful boundaries, that is. That is not to say that a society's people cannot and do not subscribe to moral relativism ([i]everyone[/i] does, of course), it is to say that acting on its grounds is antisocial to some degree. Sometimes antisocial enough for a penalty (i.e. illegal), and sometimes not. But do you see what I'm talking about now? That's what was meant when I said moral relativism has little place in a society. A society's rules simply can't afford to allow for too much of it (if that society wishes to remain [i]unchanged[/i'], which I hope makes it clear that "antisocial" does not equate to "bad" or "wrong" in any way, just as it does not equate to "right" or "good"). [/quote][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]Of course. I agree with you there. But that's very different from saying that relativism has no place in society. Relativism is simply part of what modern society [i]is[/i]. If you're a thinking, feeling human being...then chances are you're going to have differing views on a broad array of issues (moral or otherwise). So your perception and so on, compared to what other people think and feel, is something that is relative. Therefore, relativism exists and there are certain levels of it within any given society. That's all I'm saying.[/color] [quote=ScirosDarkblade] Of course. I never said relativism doesn't exist. That's like saying the Earth is flat. Relativism is true in many situations, to certain degrees. All I wrote off as horsecrap was the all-encompassing "truth is relative" version of relativism, which basically claims there is no absolute truth (which is obviously wrong, because saying "there is no absolute truth" is an attempt at an absolute truth in itself). [/quote][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]Then basically we agree. This is why I say that it's not useful to make broad generalizations -- I said that relativism (in regard to personal morals) exists and that it's only natural. In terms of "truth", you then have to decide what "kind" of truth you're talking about...whether it has to do with religion, science, politics, etc... But that's another discussion. I was only referring to people's personal beliefs, which are relative when compared against each other.[/color] [quote=ScirosDarkblade] I never said whether I felt "views being relative" is right or wrong. In some cases it's TRUE, in others it's FALSE. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE][color=#707875][/color] [color=#707875]You did say, however, that relativism doesn't have a place in society (or should I say, you agreed with a statement to that effect). Therefore you implied that relativism is something you disagree with. If I've interpreted that incorrectly, it might be useful to more carefully consider how you word it (and believe me, I'm guilty of not being terribly clear in my wording at times, so it's no problem). In terms of something being true or false, again, it depends what you're talking about (whether it's personal morals, or something on a broader scale).[/color]

[color=#707875]I think you're 50% right there. The biggest problem for PSP won't be image, it will be perceived value -- a very critical factor. If the machine is perceived to be costing too much and if the battery life is too poor, it will suffer. I have no doubts about that whatsoever. The DS is the type of system where the games will definitely be a strong selling point, as well as the perceived value. I just hope that Nintendo do a thorough redesign of the system itself, so that it looks much more attractive when it hits the market (and that's apparently what they're doing anyway, as well as creating a proper name for it). It's critical to point out that right now (and for quite a while), GameCube has been the primary driving force in industry growth. PlayStation 2 and Xbox haven't, despite the fact that PS2 has a pretty sizeable userbase now. So, with this industry, it's difficult to make broad generalizations...because there are a lot of smaller, individual factors involved (like "software penetration" for example, which is another term that a lot of people don't talk about, especially Microsoft and Sony).[/color]

[color=#707875]Basically I think it comes down to the fact that, biologically, we're all pretty much the same. We all have the same fundamental motivations, in terms of the raw biology of it. But beyond that, we live in societies that have developed unique cultural traits. And that obviously has a big influence on our lives. So I guess the question is, how much do you adhere to a particular culture, if doing so your behavior is really deviating from who you are as a person? It's an interesting question. People do all sorts of things to fit in and meet the status quo...and although it's tempting to say "be yourself" in every situation, it's not always realistic. I mean, perhaps you're someone who has a lot of piercings and tattoos (and I'm not supporting or disagreeing with that, mind you lol), and that might be an expression of who you are. But when it comes time to get particular jobs in society, you're going to find it difficult, because you're outside the status quo. In those cases, it might be better to suggest that you at least [i]temporarily [/i]mould yourself into an image that is more acceptable to certain people (that is, if you wanted the job). But again, that is entirely [b]relative[/b], because it depends on your own personal feelings and expectations. You may simply have no interest in "fitting in", and you might not have any interest in the type of jobs that would require it. Or the opposite might be true. It just comes down to the individual and their personal feelings. Still, I find it kinda funny when people try [i]so [/i]hard not to fit in, that they end up becoming a walking stereotype. Very ironic. Hehe[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade][i]Relativism[/i] as a term often refers exclusively to moral or judgemental relativism. I think that's how Undefeated was using it. (It's obvious he wasn't using it in the general "truth is relative" stance, although in that case relativism is horsecrap also, seeing as it contradicts itself right from the start.) And he [i]is[/i'] right in saying that moral relativism has little place in a society.[/quote] [color=#707875]I've already written quite an extensive post about this, but I don't see how it is possible to argue against morals being relative. The very fact that one society will adhere to a particular religion (and set of morals) and another society will adhere to something entirely different, is a sign that these issues are entirely relative. The fact that individuals have different opinions about personal behavior is just another example that people have "points of view", which itself implies relativism. So saying that relativism doesn't exist is blatantly false. Whether or not you feel that views being relative is right is an entirely different issue -- it's not one that we're discussing here though. But even then, there is an assumption that your own beliefs and opinions are "right" and that anything that deviates from that is "wrong". That in itself is relative, because it's your point of view versus the view of someone else. So, someone might disagree with me on an issue of morality for example. They might offer different advice to me. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that their advice is wrong, I'm only going to tell you what I would do in a given situation. If you're the one I'm giving advice to, you can take that or leave it...or you can take someone else's advice. You do what [i]you [/i]think is appropriate. It's highly quaint to think that everybody does or should think in the same way on every "moral issue". It just doesn't reflect reality.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think TN is just pointing out that unless a movie expressly mentions that it's based on real events, one can assume it's fiction. Having said that, there are a lot of movies out there that are fiction, but that are still based on the a real-life story. So to that extent, maybe there's some confusion...I don't know. In regard to Blair Witch itself, I think that although they were selling it as "being a real event", the ads themselves pretty much give away that it's false. If that video tape was real, who in their right mind would create a slick marketing campaign for the theatrical release? That just makes no sense in my view. The way the ads were done suggests that it was just a deliberate technique to make it [i]look [/i]realistic. But maybe the ads over there were different, I have no idea. I can only say really echo what's been said in here; the movie obviously [i]isn't [/i]real and it isn't based on anything real. These rumors popped up after the release of the movie (which can often happen).[/color]

[color=#707875]I think there's just a basic misunderstanding here about what "RPG" is. When we talk about role playing games, we aren't talking about the Dungeons & Dragons type stuff. Instead, we are solely talking about collaborative/interactive stories, which are developed among multiple members (who each create and contribute their own character). But having said that, there is [i]no [/i]reason why someone can't come along and make a totally different style of RPG, with totally new rules. That would be fine. I always encourage people to come up with new ideas and try new styles.[/color]

[QUOTE=Undefeated] Immaturity- This one is obvious, relativism is in and of itself immature. Even from a non-Christian perspective it doesn't work. The laws of science, secular humanism, and Aristotalian logic decrie these ideas from their foundations! To attempt to escape consequences, authority, and standards by using relative thought is about as intelligent and refined as putting your leg in a automated meat grinder. The only place these ideas are supported is in the circles of the secular hedonists (my term). [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Ever heard of the theory of relativity? While I don't have any desire to enter into the overall debate (because it's become ridiculous), I will say that "relativism" being labled as immature is total and utter tripe. Why? Because "relativism" doesn't apply to everything. Obviously the laws of physics are not relative; they are absolute. But when we talk about personal beliefs and ideologies...what is and isn't tolerable to the individual, we're talking about specific issues being relative, depending on your point of view. You learn this as a basic principle of graphic design -- no matter how clear you make your design, people will see it differently. That in and of itself is an example of "relativism" at work. So, at least let's not make inaccurate generalizations here. Apart from the fact that this line of discussion is getting way off the target, it's also important that we don't over-simplify these issues. And above all else, I expect everyone in here to be civil to one another. Lately I've seen a lot of sarcastic comments coming from various members, including long-time members who have otherwise had spotless records on here. Let me be clear when I say that it's just not acceptable. It only antagonizes others on the site. Let's at least aim to be relatively (there's that word again) constructive in our discussions here.[/color]