Semjaza

[quote name='outlawstar69']I don't think that androgyny is something that Japanese culture emphasizes.[/quote] I've read interviews with designers on how they've made main characters more feminine because that's what their consumers apparently want. That's why the main character in the upcoming Final Fantasy 12 is more feminine than masculine, according to one interview. Obviously you can still tell he is a male, but it's not really balanced and is definitely more on the other side of the spectrum... more of a mix of both. It's obviously something they are putting at least some emphasis on.

One of my dad's friends had some run-in with a lady, I guess you could say. They were applying for some sort of job and he read the name off the application. It said "Female", so obviously he pronounced it as such and was confused. I guess she got really mad because it was supposed to be pronounced like "Tamale" with an F instead of a T. All I know is that people are running out of name ideas. I think her mother was trying to invent some sort of African-styled name for her daughter, but that certainly isn't one. I was listening to some talk show once when a woman actually from Africa called in and complained about all the weird names here that people name their kids that aren't remotely African at all. That's all I have... lol

[QUOTE=Doc][font=Century Gothic][size=3][color=DarkSlateGray] Just for the record, I am currently using the GIMP. If anyone can offer a better, free alternative... that's legal, I'll be extremely grateful. [/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] There isn't one.

Yeah, those are somewhat normal and don't involve a virus or anything. I'd not worry about them too much... unless you suddenly get kicked off of AIM and get a message like that. It is possible that you logged on under that name at another location (school? a friend's?) and someone is trying to sign on as you, though. If you get them a lot, I'd try changing your password. It shouldn't happen very often.

VbArcade was actually gone after because apparently a lot of the games that it utilizes break copyrights in some way or another. The guy who made it doesn't host any of the related downloads on his site anymore. Obviously you can still find the stuff, but I'd be far more careful with it on a site of this size.

[QUOTE=satan665]The game [U]should not[/U] be rated AO based on the hot coffee scene in the game. The graphic sex parts are just code thats lost in the game and not accesible while you are playing. The only way to get to it is by hacking the game, which I'm pretty sure is illegal anyway. Rockstar should have deleted the code, but I don't see how it would affect the rating if its inaccesible.[/QUOTE] The key thing is that it is no longer unaccessible. There's not really anything illegal about enabling some code in a game that was disabled. In the case of the PS2 version, people are apparently finding it with some Game Shark codes. There's certainly nothing illegal about that. It's in the game. Anything in a game is accessible and companies should know this by now. I can think of several games offhand that have things you can get into that you otherwise can't with a Game Shark or Pro Action Replay (Wind Waker, Persona, etc). To not consider something like that at this point in time is rather short sighted and, honestly, stupid.

Personally I liked their early demo stuff the best, Mate Feed Kill Repeat. To me it was just the most fun and versatile release. I always enjoy songs that are able to switch styles completely mid-song successfully and that album had a lot of examples of that. I wasn't as big on them after that, I suppose, but they held up a lot more than I ever expected.

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]After reading through these recent posts, I really wonder whether most people even know how the ESRB actually works, or what the different ratings are given for. Those not living in the US, I can understand, but others... Unlike movie ratings in the US, ESRB ratings are purely suggestions. Stores can sell whatever game, regardless of rating, to whoever they want, regardless of their age, with no consequences. It's only the stores' policies that have them carding people who buy M games, in accordance with a [url=http://www.esrb.org/about_partnership.asp][u]Retail Partnership[/u][/url] they made with the ESRB. If stores are supposed to card people, it's only because they chose to do it. Now, more on the subject at hand, are the ESRB's [url=http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp][u]Game Ratings[/u][/url]. If you actually read the descriptions, you should be able to see why San Andreas was changed to an AO rating. M rated games, "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." AO rated games, "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." The key difference in this case being the words "prolonged," "intense," and "graphic." So basically, because you actually see the sex happening, and you see it for a good while, that bumps the game up into the AO category. Nudity itself isn't really even an issue here, because M rated games can contain nudity. But what they can't contain is the graphic depiction of prolonged sexual acts; content of that type requires an AO rating.[/color][/QUOTE] This is what I've said in my posts... Even in terms of movies, the rating system is voluntary just like with games as is the sale of them. The government isn't involved. The idea of something being intense or longer applies to both R into NC-17 as it does with M into AO. The main problem for a lot of these politicians is really that there's no social stigma involved in children buying these games (unlike movie tickets), there's no penalties for children buying these games (unlike movie tickets) and the people in the ESRB are essentially industry employees to begin with. If this was like how the film rating groups worked then no one would have any complaints to begin with. I've been reading about some politician that things The Sims 2 is easily as bad as Hot Coffee. He said something to the effect of the game having nude characters with nipples, labias, etc. Anyone that has played this game knows for a fact that not a single one of those things appear in that game without a skin from unofficial sources. Even getting rid of the mosaic the game has in place simply reveals characters devoid of any sexual organs. They look like Barbie and Ken dolls. The guy admitted to the idea of there being a mosaic that covers this up (unlike SA), but says that's somehow even worse because it's EA and Maxis admitting there's bad stuff under there. Give me a break. The guy obviously has no idea what he's talking about considering the whole skin argument to begin with. I think when we start blaming companies for the actions of others outside of them we have a problem. If someone added this GTA:SA mod in themselves and programmed all of it then I'd have nothing to say. That isn't Rockstar's or Take 2's fault whatsoever, it's the fault of their users. If we're going to base things on that then any game should be considered AO. Why not go after the nude skin packs for DOA Volleyball in that case? There's a line with this stuff.

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']So in other words, the content of this mod (ie: sex scenes, even clothed ones) would put this game beyond the M rating?[/font][/quote] I would say so. I don't know if they'd be quite as up-in-arms if the girl was clothed as well, but I'm sure the very acts being explicitly depicted in the mod would be enough for it. Implications are another story. Sennen had told me that he heard the sex game in God of War is more explicit... but it's not. Yeah, it's still a sex minigame, but a lot of it is implied and completely off the screen. I'd recommend seeing the video of this if you don't have access to the mod itself. It's not hard to find. I doubt anyone who has seen it firsthand would be as "well, whatever" about it lol.

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']Secondly and most importantly, Dahl's dislike of the original film had nothing to do with candy bar promotions. Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay to the 1971 film, but the final screenplay was quite different to what he'd written - David Seltzer largely rewrote huge chunks of the thing and basically killed a lot of the original screenplay. He killed off many of the darker elements and included various totally unrelated literary references.[/quote] I'm not understanding how this disuades the idea of it being made for a candy bar. The whole reason the film was pushed and got funding was because of the chocolate promotions they made to encompass it. Regardless of what Dahl originally wrote it was changed largely so it could be accessed by kids well enough so that they'd want to buy the new candy. It's the same concept with making a cartoon to sell action figures from the producer's point of view. All of the changes really directly tie into using it as a vehicle to sell Wonka branded products and as such I don't think it's incorrect to say he was mostly upset about the whole chocolate incident because all of that is involved with it directly. The difference here is that I'm not one of these people and I'm speaking of my own accord. I've read the book. I liked the original movie. I was interested in this film before even Marilyn Manson was rumored about it, which was a long, long time ago. I don't have any misconceptions and ignorances coming into this. After all of that I still think people who have seen and read all of these things will compare the films. If people want to discuss how important it is to stay true to the book then whatever... I don't really know how one can even compare how similar they are or aren't without even seeing the film yet unless they sit and read the entire script. I know the films are different from eachother and the novel in various ways (it's not as if either of them use the original idea of the Oompa Loompas fully among many other things), but they're still going to be compared even by people who have read and seen everything because they're directly related to eachother even if it is in a very basic way. I don't really see what's wrong with saying "I liked this guy as Willy better" or "These kids better" or "this take on that angle better" because they're very similar films even with the differences. They go to the same areas, talk about the same things, show off the same kids... the only major difference is the removal of Slugworth and the addition of a Wonka backstory. This one may be more like the book, but it's certainly not completely like the book and then what...? If someone makes another one of these in thirty years that is even more like the book are we not going to compare it to this new one? It's not like we really know if Dahl would love this version either and all movies are edited around to some extent. Ironically, even with all the editing, I almost feel like the original adaptation is darker as it is... probably largely because Wonka doesn't feel like a moron in it. Regardless of all that, it really comes down to how enjoyable the film is by itself for me. If people want to read the book then go read the book. Being accurate and being a more enjoyable film are very different things sometimes. For me, this film was largely just far more disposable and forgettable in the long run... maybe because I've read and seen the original "adaptation" before? I have no idea lol. That's my opinion obviously. I've seen many people who prefer it, even without knowing the book. I don't think they're wrong or anything. As for Alice, I think a lot of the differences came down to time contraints and getting sections in that were most popular. I can't say I really miss the lady with the pig lol.

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']I don't really understand the ratings system we're talking about here. In America, M-rated games are the equivalent of R-rated movies? If that's the case, this seems quite ridiculous, especially given the mildness of the content (mildness in the sense that it would surely fit within those ratings boundaries).[/font][/quote] Well, I'm not sure what you're asking so I guess I'll explain it... if you know this already, I apologize. In the US, R ratings mean 17 and over. The important thing is that after that comes "without parent or guardian". Kids under 17 aren't allowed into these movies without someone with them that is significantly older accompanying them and buying the tickets. I still get carded for movies and if I was under 17 they wouldn't let me buy them. A parent can bring a five year old into an R rated movie if they wanted to and it happens surprisingly often. However, this is generally very frowned upon by most people I know. M is the exact same system here. Stores are [i]supposed[/i] to card younger kids. The big difference is that they very rarely do and unlike the movie industry, there's no repurcussions for it currently (which is why so many government officials are pushing for retail fines of selling to minors... which is fine with me since they're not supposed to sell them to these kids to begin with). Games are still largely considered a kids thing and parents don't seem to be as involved in stopping kids from getting these as they would an R rated film. There's really no social taboo in this either like there is in a kid going to a R rated movie. No one questions a kid buying a game regardless of what is in it. People question a kid going in to see Bad Boys II or House of 1,000 Corpses. M games can have nudity and intense gore and drug usage, just like any R rated film. In films s soon as you bring this up into insane amount of really incredibly realistic gore or explicit sexual acts (basically anything beyond nudity and touching breasts) you're at least into the NC-17 rating (kids under 17 cannot go in no matter who buys the tickets, much like an AO rating is supposed to work), if not X. NC-17 is most comparable to AO thanks to this, obviously. There's a very set of differences. The gore thing really doesn't come up with AO ratings here simply because 1.) it's a game and can't really look super realistic with today's graphics and 2.) none have really approached how bad and incredibly mean spirited some movie violence is (intense torture, rapes, etc). The nudity and sexual stuff obviously comes up more often in both movies and games, though... But a lot of companies that make sexual games do not send things to retail channels and sell direct, meaning they don't really need to deal with the ESRB at all. The big thing hereis that this GTA mod doesn't just show nudity, like was brought up by Riflesatrecess. There are plenty of M rated games with nudity and have been for years... Duke Nukem, BMX XXX, God of War. The Hot Coffee mod unlocks explicit stuff. It may not show the guy fully naked doing these things, but it's very strongly implied and WELL beyond the other M rated games with nudity in them. I'm starting to wonder if anyone if many people here have actually seen the mod in action. It's not comparable to seeing a vase shake around during a sex minigame in God of War whatsoever. The system politicians want to go for is very similar. Stopping kids from buying these games by being carded like they're supposed to be in the first place. Every single interview I've read very stongly says they have no interest in stifling these games or getting rid of M ratings, they just want to protect the kids from them. They all say if the parents buy the game then there's nothing they can do about it. They're not going to stop kids from playing these games or being given as gifts to them, but they can stop the sales to them directly. Even if the parents are aware of these violent/sexual games, the fact that kids can still so easily buy them undermines both the parents and the system itself. Why can't a kid just hide the game till he's around? It's not like it's difficult and kids aren't stupid. The Sims comparison doesn't make much sense. The makers of the game don't fully texture the nude model and cover it up with a mosaic to get around the problem. They can't be held accountable for people removing things that they've done that fundamentally change the game's complete set up and editing skins on their own time. They don't have super secret fully textured nude skins and uncensored sexual things hidden away. What's involved with modding the Sims 2 compared to GTA: SA is extremely different in both execution and purpose. Even then, the ESRB was shown all of this stuff and chose their rating. They weren't shown this GTA stuff, which they should have been even if it was locked up in the game somewhere knowing how players are nowadays. With GTA, all anyone has done here is enabled code that was already in the game to begin with and it results in something far more explicit that's far more indepth. They didn't really add any of their own work like what happened with The Sims.

In a lot of ways I don't really think it matters if this is a direct remake or not. It should be obvious to most people that this has more to do with the book (I think they should have put Dahl's name above it honestly), but that doesn't mean the films shouldn't be compared. They're based on the same source material and Dahl wrote the original's screenplay. I think a lot of what he disliked about it really just stemmed around the fact that it was largely only made so someone could sell a new type of candybar. I know I'd feel disgusted by that too. They attempt different things and use the source material in separate ways, but being more true to the book doesn't necessarily make a film better. They're going to be compared no matter what. I think they nicely sit next to eachother thanks to the differences, but I can't see anyone not comparing between the two because they have the same characters, same areas and many of the exact same lines because of the book they're based on. Honestly, aside from the new backstory for Wonka (which really adds very little in my opinion) and a few smaller changes to basic things. They're incredibly similar and Burton is obviously strongly influenced by much of the look of the first one. So, again, I don't really think something being directly based on the book moreso than something else automatically makes it better. I just don't think it's as interesting in many ways, personally. It had nothing really to do with little things it did or didn't take from the book.

[quote name='RiflesAtRecess']Yes, it does have Metal Gear and Metal Gear: Solid Snake in the game. People have been asking Kojima for them, since they only came out to a limited audience in Japan. I think he would have put them in anyway, as it seems to go well with the whole 'Origins of Big Boss' theme.[/quote] Good. I'd get this at a lower price for those two games. To me they're the biggest reason to get this. I don't mind the MGS games, but I don't think they really compare to the first two (I've played fan translations). Too bad we won't see any Sean Connery and Einstein based images in the port lol.

Unless they plan on just rehashing the gameplay model from RE4, they'll have a lot to do. It's also not simple to render graphics at that level on a consistant basis for the entire length of a game. I wouldn't be surprised if it took as long as they're claiming. I wouldn't be surprised if most games took around two years to complete at that level, which is something of a problem depending on how you look at it. There's a video if it floating around. I downloaded mine from Jeux-france.com - which I think just directly links the IGN video lol.

Yeah, I'd agree it was decent. I found myself less and less enchanted by it as time went on. I find that the general buzz from a movie wears off more quickly with some films than others... this was one of the faster ones. It really seems very disposable to me. The main people I can see being most impressed with this one would be people who hate musicals... not that it doesn't do other things different or well, but that's the main thing for a lot of people. It's good. It's not great. I don't particularly agree that Wonka has much more depth to his character in this one than the first version. Yes, obviously the movie goes farther into his backstory, but the character himself is so two-dimensional and full of childish, stupid comebacks that it winds up just balancing itself out again. I liked some of the effects, I liked all the kids and parents to some degree and they did a decent job with almost everything. I was happy with the music myself... it manges to be Elfman-ish without sounding like one of this soundtracks the second the first note is played. He seems out of his rut. The Oopma Loompa songs wound up being a nice range of styles.

I've seen the videos and heard all the songs (I've listened to all of TP3 Reloaded, if you can believe that) and I honestly do not see what the big deal is here. It's nearly twenty minutes of the same water drop beat while R. Kelly tells one of the most ludicrous stories I've ever heard in my entire life. It's full of some of the most hilarious things I've heard in a song and made even more hilarious by how passionately R. Kelly tries to play these things off. Why is he waving a gun around when no one is threatening him? "I can't believe it's a man!!" Give me a break. People are making a big deal of "unique" idea to do this in chapters. It's epic and never been done before according to a DJ on WGCI here. Yeah, R. Kelly invented the concept album, just like Puff Daddy (or so he was called at the time) "Invented the Remix". :rolleyes: I can see getting some sort of humor enjoyment out of this and R. Kelly has a decent voice, but man, this is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of music.

Wasn't this also supposed include ports of the original MSX Metal Gear games?

[QUOTE=Charles]You [I]do[/I] see sexual imagery with the "hot coffee" mod that sparked this controversy. I haven't bothered to view the scene but in a discussion I was reading, described the scene. They said it begins with oral sex and moves on to the bed where they have intercourse in various positions in a mini game that allows the player to control the action. Supposedly CJ remains fully clothed while the female is naked. If this description is accurate, then I don't see what the big deal is. How would the above described scene be any worse than the puppet sex scene from [I]Team America[/I]? I'll tell you how: most people won't even see this sexual content. A hacker named Patrick Wildenborg unlocked content that was available on the DVD but not used in the final product. So, unless you own the PC version and alter it by downloading the mod, you're never going to see the scene. The other side of the story, as Rockstar puts it, is that Wildenborg edited the game's source code which would completely remove Rockstar's liability. I find Rockstar's argument a little doubtful though, considering the textures and voice work were all in the game already. But, I digress. This game wasn't meant for children in the first place. When you're going around killing hundreds of people during the course of the main game, stealing cars, and robbing houses, I don't see why a sex-based mini game is such a big deal. It's not like sales are going to be hurt considering almost anyone who's going to bother with this game already has it.[/QUOTE] You're kind of misinformed here. It's not only in the PC version. It's also in the Xbox version, which can also be modded. According to things I've read, it's also in the PS2 version although I've not heard of any way to alter that one (edit - there's Action Replay clodes). Take 2/Rockstar practically makes it sound as if this guy made the mod up himself when all he did was edit something that was obviously ridiculously simple and in place. The girl is fully naked, but also fully textured. It's not a blank canvas like naked Sims. You control the guy thrusting and doing whatever else by pressing buttons to a rhythm. This is basically the same thing as half the porno games out there that stores won't even touch. Whether or not the guy is clothed is irrelevant when the woman isn't and everything is explicitly shown. Comparing this to a film doesn't really make sense because the voluntary films rating system has been proven to work and people look down upon kids going into R rated films even with a parent. This isn't true of video games whatsoever and everyone that buys them knows that. I can see why Take 2 didn't inform them thanks to it not being accessible normally, but it is an issue. It doesn't matter what one's "moral standpoint" is on sex versus violence because the simple, but sad, fact is that the US is far more up in arms about sexual things than violence. You can see that in any film or TV show. It's not going to be any different with games. These same politicians have been bitching about this game before anything was known about the Hot Coffee mod. They just have even more fodder now. This didn't come out of nowhere. AO stipulates things that GTA now has unlocked and underminds the system and the rating. According to the ESRB rules, companies are supposed to send in a tape as well as a written survey talking about what is in their games. This isn't just about "oh, now kids can see sex!!" as far as I'm concerned. It's an unprecedented thing because the ESRB doesn't generally rate games with this sort of content in the first place (things that would be rated AO usually don't go through this system because they're not sold in general stores). If the company doesn't get any repremand for something like this it sets the idea that this sort of thing is okay and the ESRB has absolutely no power... something they want to fight very hard now that so many politicians are on their back about that very same idea. The argument of many of them is that this voluntary system is broken and flawed, that it is inherantly messed up because people involved with it are basically paid members of the industry. Obviously parents should be informed about these things and I don't think any of them should rely perfectly on a ratings system, but it's still an issue that has to be worked through because that's what the ESRB is paid to do. None of this is helping their image of responsiblity or power.

Articles have quotes from the guy basically saying this game likely won't be done for another two to three years yet. If that's a mistranslation of some sort, I don't know, but if it is I can't say I'm very excited yet. The game looks good in scans. Kind of how you'd expect from next generation I guess, although nothing absolutely mind blowing. Edit - Ed made a thread on this first. I didn't see it and now I'm confused... someone merge these lol. [size=1][color=blue]Happy to oblige, old chum. - Shinmaru[/size][/color]

This is something I think the website needs desparately: higher resolution wallpapers. Nowadays 1024x768 is no longer good enough for a large portion of people. I can't make use of any wallpapers that size without them looking like crap. The ability to submit larger ones would be great. It would also be nice if we could actually submit the different sizes ourselves if we wanted to. The resizing feature is great and all, but it winds up blurring and artifacting and making things such as text impossible to read. I'd much rather make my own 800x600 image and put that up there too than have my wallpapers resized into some mess.

I don't know why people use the term "jpg-ish" or "jpg-y". It doesn't really make any sense. If you mean blurry say blurry, if you mean artifacted say artifacted, if you mean jagged say jagged. Most of the time the way the file is compressed has very little to do with actual blurriness or jagginess and everything to do with color artifacting (particularly with red shades). Most of the stuff people describe as "jpg-ish" has nothing to do with the file format and would the same if it was another file type or even a 100% quality JPG. Anyway. I'm going with Hack Helba's. I don't really think either of them is mind blowing, but his has far more of a focus in my opinion. The general idea that Rising's is more of a background of sorts is kind of what I'm thinking, but I'm not really sure how to properly phrase it. I'm not really big on the lines in either of them (or those boxes in Helba's), however.

Man, I can't even count the crap I have. I've had more over the years, but my basic practice is to buy a new or used CD, listen and rip it and then sell it used for someone else to use so I can buy more CDs. I have probably around 250 sitting around right now, but it's been around twice as much as that at times. Who knows how many I've had in my lifetime. I have a 40 GB Creative Touch Zen. It's not really worth listing all my stuff on there here because the thing is completely full. "You won't use up 40 GBs!!" my ***.

This comes up every few months. The smart thing to do would be to make sure where the link goes (if you hover the mouse pointer over the link it gives you the real URL) and not go to it unless it seems familiar. That or just ask the person what the hell it is. If they don't know, then obviously it's some other issue. These things aren't that hard to remove, so I don't know why they're so prevalent. Of course, something like 80% of internet users don't even have a virus scanner. [url]http://www.jayloden.com/aimfix.htm[/url] - This would probably help.

I have a customized Dreamcast. I put a transparent blue plate on top and left the botton that white color. I think it looks pretty hot, myself. Personally I'm getting tired of black and grey consoles. White was a step up (that old white Saturn was awesome), but it's being overused nowadays. I like the option to play around with the look.