Messages

16

Video Game Chat / Re: Why Melee Is Better Than Brawl

« on: November 15, 2008, 08:32:05 PM »

You don't ever have a game that you like enough to keep because you know you'll want to experience it again?

Wrong - you misread my post. All I said is that I don't grow attached to my games like some people do. The games I usually sell are single player games that I've already played through and experienced at least twice. Eventually, replaying the same old game gets tiring to me, which is why I don't feel any remorse when I sell them.

Personally, the games I value most are games that are excellent for playing with other friends. Playing single player adventures over again is good and all, but what really makes a game worth keeping for me is the ability to play it over and over again with other people, with different outcomes each time (ie. Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Mario Kart). These games never grow old, and even if I don't play them for months, I know I'll come back to them eventually. On the other hand, single player games, are almost always exactly the same when you play them through again, so eventually it comes to the point where there's not much chance I'll ever play it again.

Examples of this are Paper Mario: TTYD and Super Mario Galaxy. Are they awesome? Yes. Do I love them? Of course. But they are games that withold a finite amount of enjoyment for me - and it isn't worth for me to keep them around for years and years when I know they'll never offer anything besides the same adventure I already played the first and second times around.

Also, keep in mind that a large part of this mindset is the result of my fairly limited funds. I'm hoping to rectify this problem next year, when I can finally try to get a regular paid job (I turn 16 in January).

17

Video Game Chat / Re: Why Melee Is Better Than Brawl

« on: November 15, 2008, 06:22:32 PM »

What the hell indeed, it's like that guy has no real attachment to the game. Plays through it once, figures that's enough for one lifetime, and pitches it. Now, true, some games last so long that if you did play them non-stop, you wouldn't want to spend one more minute with Mario lest you went berserk. Well, that and the ending should put a nice cap on things that you might want to leave on that note.

I don't see what's your beef with that guy. Honestly, I don't have attachement to any of my games, for the same reason that I don't have an attachment to any other inanimate objects. To me, they're just games, so I don't feel upset at all if I sell them in order to buy different games. I'm not a hardcore a gamer as many of you guys are (and I by hardcore, I mean the true definition, not the one that FPS junkies now use to describe themselves), but I'm not a casual nongamer either. I'm just a guy who plays games at his own pace, and doesn't care if he isn't able to beat every single achievement. To me, games are mainly just for enjoyment, not a test of my "uber skillz."

18

Video Game Chat / Re: Banjo Kazooie - Nuts and Bolts

« on: November 15, 2008, 06:14:30 PM »

Rare is dead, guys. A half hearted attempt to revive one of their beloved characters isn't going to change that.

19

General Chat / Re: What are your hobbies?

« on: November 13, 2008, 05:01:23 PM »

For some reason I forgot to mention that I also do a bit of drawing by hand. When I was young, I used to draw pictures of all my favorite airplanes from three-views in some of my books (it was a really big interest back then). Nowadays I draw mainly on the computer, but I have been doing a lot of pencil drawings lately to go with the aformentioned story I am working on.

20

Video Game Chat / Re: Anyone else play Team Fortress?

« on: November 13, 2008, 03:03:59 PM »

Anyone that knows anything knows that FPS games are better on consoles because of the better graphics, that's why I play TF2 on the Xbox 360.

I respectfully disagree. Personally, I hate FPS's on any system other than the Wii and PC. I've never understood how people can enjoy using a joystick to move a gun around, as it feels awkward and unnatural compared to using the Wii stylus or a computer mouse. Besides, you're posting on a Mario forum, and anyone who is a big fan of mario knows that graphics don't make the game - gameplay does.

21

General Chat / Re: What are your hobbies?

« on: November 13, 2008, 02:58:34 PM »

Personally, my biggest hobby besides video games is Legos. I'm nearly 16, and I'm still a huge fan of the toy. Currently, I have over 200 kits in my collection, as well as numerous other related items (shirts, books, games, etc.). I'm also a member of three forums that deal with legos, on all of which I'm an active poster.

I also love fiddling around with all sorts of computer related programs and arts - graphic design, video game making (Gamemaker), programing, spriting, animation, rom hacking, etc. I'm not really good at any of them, and most I have basically no experience in, but I hope to put this interest to good use once I get out of high school and into college.

One more thing I really enjoy is writing - both creative and non-fiction. I'm currently working on a book length story that I'm doing bit by bit just for fun. I've also written a few letters to my local newspaper.

Besides those things, I also enjoy reading (of all types), watching a few cartoons on saturday and sunday morning, going to a local homeschooling group, hanging out with my friends, and spending time with my family. Oh, and surfing the internet, of course. :P

22

General Chat / What are your hobbies?

« on: November 11, 2008, 06:41:16 PM »

Just wondering what everyone else does for fun besides playing video games.

23

Video Game Chat / Re: Things That Made You Poop A Little.

« on: October 28, 2008, 04:30:01 PM »

Halo 3 should be rated Teen.

The Halo series is like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Both are forever stuck in limbo between two different content ratings, and most people who watch or play them disagree on the actual decision.

24

Video Game Chat / Re: The Non-Tournament Players Tier List (For Brawl)

« on: October 28, 2008, 04:24:06 PM »

My personal view is that, unless your are actually cheating, no method of winning is actually cheap. I have a friend that thinks using the Gamecube C-Stick to do smash attacks in Melee and Brawl is "cheap," which I disagree with. Besides, doing things like only spamming one attack is usually only useful against players a lot less experienced than you. Trying that against a Smash Bros tournament master would just get your butt kicked.

The only thing I'm not sure about is certain techniques like snaking and wave-dashing, which may or may not be glitches - not advanced techniques intended by the actual developers. Regardless, I don't play against people that use them, so it doesn't matter to me whether other players take advantage of them. However, I'm not fond of people who claim that Brawl and Mario Kart Wii were ruined just because they took those things out. Complain about the lack of new content, complain about the items - I don't care about that, but saying that you won't even play those games just because you can't dominate with a questionable technique isn't my cup of tea.

25

Video Game Chat / Re: Why Melee Is Better Than Brawl

« on: October 28, 2008, 04:00:05 PM »

I sold Melee a while after buying Brawl. I'm not a person who keeps video games after I get bored with them - especially after I get a new version that I feel is superior. This doesn't apply to everything I own, but money is tighter for me than for other people, so selling games that I never play anymore helps me to even out the costs.

26

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: What's Your Religion?

« on: October 23, 2008, 02:24:06 PM »

Okay, let me rephrase what I said above. A lot of people seem to think that Christians believe what they believe just because "the Bible said it." Well, that's false. Some may be like that, but many Christians research and think about things using sources OTHER than the bible. Ever heard of Lee Strobel? He was a hardcore athiest, and he set out to prove Christianty wrong by researching every aspect of it. He came to the conclusion that it was all true. I know that won't sway anyone - the only point I'm making is that converting to Christianity is not always a split second, impulse decision made on feelings.

True, this is a common misconception. In fact, there is no proof of Christianity.

Well, is there any evidence for athiesm? It seems that all athiests ever do to "prove" athiesm is to attack Christianity and religion. I never actually see athiests defending their beliefs - they are always on the attack.

27

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: What's Your Religion?

« on: October 22, 2008, 02:21:14 PM »

They guys who thought up Darwinism actually spent plenty of years studying animals and the fossils of the animals that existed before them in order to justify the idea that perhaps some animals change over several hundreds of years to adapt to specfic environments.

And here we come to one of the biggest misconceptions in modern science. The process you are describing is called "natural selection," where animals change in minor ways (ie. the length of their fur, or the size of their paws) to adapt to their current environment. This process, also known as micro evolution, is NOT the same as Darwinism, or Macro Evolution. You can't say that just because a cat can change into a different breed of cat, that it could also change into a fish or monkey - even given supposed millions of years of time. Genetical variation that causes natural selection is already contained in every animal - but in order for an animal to change into a completely different species, the animal's systems would have to create new genetic code. This confusion and interchanging of two completely different processes really gets on my nerves.

Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity. The reality is that there are other written accounts, specifically historical ones, that line up with the bible - despite being from foreign nations. There is archeological evidence, including cities and locations that match the location of events mentioned in the Bible. And there is apolegetics - countless books have been written explaining Christianity through the same logic system that people try to debunk it with. In summary: don't assume that Christians blindly follow the lead of other Christians without even thinking it over and researching it.

28

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: What's Your Religion?

« on: October 22, 2008, 10:15:50 AM »

Smart guy.

(If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.)

Firstly, did I say that Einstein was a Christian, or that he believed the bible? No - all I said was that he believed in the idea of an inteligent creator, which you just proved through your second quote. He was fine with the idea of some powerful being or force starting the universe - just not the God of the Bible.

Secondly, you skipped over the other two examples I gave. If Newton was an idiot for believing in God, than you're saying that the guy who came up with the Law of Gravity is a fool. If Pascal was an idiot, than you're discounting the guy that did amazing things for modern math. So, are you saying that?

Zarkan's post seems to invoke way too many ideas for the sole purpose of discounting them, i.e. "this is the only possible solution you can come to", which only works when that's actually true.

For my part, I think Jesus must have been a pretty hip and cool guy, but I have major problems with the church.

Yes, very nice - discard my entire post without actually taking time to even make counter arguments. If you want to try to pick my argument apart piece by piece, fine - but ignoring it like this only seems to show that you don't care about actually coming up with a defense.

29

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: What's Your Religon?

« on: October 21, 2008, 03:46:42 PM »

Seriously, what a mess. This topic seems to be jumping around from "interesting and thoughtful" to "downright hateful and arogant." For every page I see that seems to be engaging in a friendly discussion, there's at least one wonderful comment. Like this one:

So Greek mythology is true because they wrote them down?

The main reason people who believe in gods are dumb retarded idiots is the act of looking at the hundreds of religions of humanity and thinking one is true and the rest false. Newsflash: yours is just as retarded as all those others. You're just too blind to see it.

Seriously, this is really rude. I don't go around calling atheists and agnostics ignorant idiots - I have an uncle who's an agnostic, and I'm friends with  him. If a Christian friend told me that they had become atheistic, I wouldn't yell in his face "YOU'RE A DUMB RETARTED IDIOT!" The main thing I get so ticked off with is that some atheists pass all religions and all their followers off as simpleminded, without any actual reason for it except "religion is stupid." If you want to personally view the idea of God as stupid, fine, but going around and dismissing all people who disagree with you as "idiots" only makes you sound like a jerk. Ever heard of Pascal? Newton? They were devout Christians, and yet without them, we wouldn't have some of the most defining mathematical and scientific principals of our time. Even Einstein, who is often called the greatest scientist ever, believed in an inteligent creator. Are you willing to call them "stupid ignorant idiots" as well?

As you can probably tell, I'm a Christian - but it seems that I differ from a lot of the other Christians on this board. I believe in a Bible that is 100% acurate, and that belief includes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Honestly, I feel that if a Christians starts to deny any part of the Bible, then they are opening a can of worms that could only lead to denying other parts - and so on, until they refuese to believe any of it. I'm not applying this to everyone - all I know is that if I did that, that would probably be the result. Still, I know that interpreting Genesis as a proverbial book doesn't even slighly deny someone's status as a Believer - what matters is whether you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your only savior. I'm perfectly willing to disagree on issues like the creation account - it's really not a whole different than disagreeing whether the "Sons of God" and "Daughters of Men" were only humans or a mixture of humans and angels. It doesn't affect whether we are saved or not.

On the issue of other religions, Christianity is very different from any other belief system. Basically all other belief systems were either made by people trying to explain the world around them, or started by people who wanted to be worshiped for some reason or another. There are exceptions - Bhudda was just a spiritual teacher who ended up being worshiped without his directive, for example - but generally all false religions fall into one of those two catergories. Christianity... not so much. The big thing to understand is that there WAS a man named Jesus who was a carpenter and taught people about God. You can not deny that he existed without also denying historical records that were made by the goverment and other sources at the time. Thus, it comes down to either that he was a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. If he was a liar, like most other religion starters are, then he would just have denied he was God during his trial. I suppose you could argue that he was a lunatic, but Jesus's general description is not one of lunacy. He is recorded as being gentle, thoughtful, inteligent, and one who is excellent with language and parables. If he was a lunatic, then how was he able to continually outwit the religious leaders, who were considered to be the smartest people at the time? Insanity and inteligence just doesn't go hand to hand - they're basically oxymorons. A lot of people come to the conclusion that the Bible and Christianity was made up by people - but those people were recorded to have died refusing to renounce their beliefs. If it was a lie concoted by some power-seeking "teachers," then they would have not willingly have gone to the grave.

My conclusion has basically been that Christianity makes far more sense than any other belief. It's not mindlessly believing what my parents have told me - I've struggled a lot with this issue myself. But I feel that I just don't have any other choice - because in my opinion, Christianity is the most logical belief system. And seriously, logic is my life - I don't really have faith as much as logic. I actually often don't trust that God is going to provide everything that I need - which is mainly because after reading about other Christian experiences, it sometimes just doesn't seem logical for me to assume that. It's a problem, but I just have to work through it. At least it's better than not having any solid sense of morality and truth.

30

Video Game Chat / Re: The Non-Tournament Players Tier List (For Brawl)

« on: October 16, 2008, 12:48:37 PM »

Tiers are stupid, IMO. Basically all the characters can be really great - the only thing separating characters like Mr. Game and Watch from Mario is the level of skill it takes to master them. But seriously, any character can be really hard to beat in the hands of a master.

Just for kicks, however - if I was making a tier list, I would not put Captain Falcon nearly as high as you did. Captain Falcon has seriously been nerfed since the last two games. I'm serious, he was amazing in the original and Melee. Now he's just kind of meh.