Messages

46

Video Game Chat / Re: The most annoying level

« on: October 17, 2010, 04:57:04 PM »

Acually I was referring to Zelda's water temple.

...I was too, Water Temple from Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Is there a water temple in Super Mario Sunshine that I'm unaware of?

47

Video Game Chat / Re: Chase Goose 2

« on: October 17, 2010, 02:55:43 AM »

351. Ugh, too hard.

48

Forum Games / Re: You Laugh, You Lose

« on: October 16, 2010, 07:24:39 PM »

49

Forum Games / Re: You Laugh, You Lose

« on: October 12, 2010, 03:29:00 PM »

I didn't lose, but I have the feeling that if I'd stayed on the page long enough, it probably would've struck me as funny at some point.

I'm-a gonna explain the joke as I see it. "Crap" is a metaphor for the crap on the Internet. Why would you keep looking at a crapful website when the crap on it keeps getting worse and worse? It's funny if you're one of those people it speaks of. And I am, out of some sick desire to see just how bad things can get.

Turns out I probably missed the point and it's more literal than that. To which I say the joke is being curious enough to see what's at the end even when everything else suggests it's just going to be "crap" again. Kind of like the end of the AVGN review for Little Red Hood.

It's like those posts that tell you to keep scrolling down, or to press a red button. You know you shouldn't, but you do anyway.

50

Video Game Chat / Re: The most annoying level

« on: October 11, 2010, 01:03:07 PM »

I agree with Water Temple and the FLUDD-less parts of Super Mario Sunshine (I once drew a bad-looking comic about one of those FLUDD-less challenges, so it's pretty high on the annoy-o-meter). It'd be tough for me to pinpoint the -most- annoying level I've ever faced in a game, but I'll nominate any of the Story Mode challenges from F-Zero GX.

51

Forum Games / Re: You Laugh, You Lose

« on: October 11, 2010, 12:44:25 PM »

Lost.

52

Forum Games / Re: You "Awesome," You Lose

« on: October 05, 2010, 09:45:46 PM »

Was I the only one who first thought it was showing a pic of Colin Mochrie?

53

Forum Games / Re: Anything-Goes Pokedex

« on: October 02, 2010, 01:01:03 PM »

54

Forum Games / Re: The Pointless Topic!

« on: October 01, 2010, 02:35:43 PM »

You know who likes pointless entertainment like that? MY MOM!

...Regular Show, anyone? No?

55

Forum Games / Re: You "Awesome," You Lose

« on: September 27, 2010, 10:55:26 PM »

Just breed an M&M with a Jawbreaker and call it a day. I shall call it... the Mawbreaker.

56

Forum Games / Re: Your Weapon of Choice?

« on: September 26, 2010, 10:28:37 PM »

Come on, someone out there has to have a plushy/figurine/pic of Gordon Freeman to their left.

*looks to left, sees cat* Um, are cats good for fighting zombies? It's my tame cat too, he'd be the perfect distraction. But it'd only stop one zombie and there's five million of them. I'm gonna need more cats.

57

Forum Games / Re: Your Weapon of Choice?

« on: September 26, 2010, 08:04:19 PM »

A small notepad. And to the left of that are sunglasses. Can't blow with this, can't blow with that, can't blow with anything else. I'm screwed.

58

General Chat / Re: What D&D character are you?

« on: September 24, 2010, 08:10:33 PM »

You Are A:

True Neutral Human Ranger (2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 9
Dexterity- 12
Constitution- 9
Intelligence- 13
Wisdom- 10
Charisma- 11

Alignment:
True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Rangers- Rangers are skilled stalkers and hunters who make their home in the woods. Their martial skill is nearly the equal of the fighter, but they lack the latter's dedication to the craft of fighting. Instead, the ranger focuses his skills and training on a specific enemy a type of creature he bears a vengeful grudge against and hunts above all others. Rangers often accept the role of protector, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods. His skills allow him to move quietly and stick to the shadows, especially in natural settings, and he also has special knowledge of certain types of creatures. Finally, an experienced ranger has such a tie to nature that he can actually draw on natural power to cast divine spells, much as a druid does, and like a druid he is often accompanied by animal companions. A ranger's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (28)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXX (6)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaos --- XXXXX (5)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Evil ---- X (1)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Half-Orc - (0)

Class:
Barbarian - (-2)
Bard ------ XX (2)
Cleric ---- (-2)
Druid ----- XXXX (4)
Fighter --- (-2)
Monk ------ (-21)
Paladin --- (-25)
Ranger ---- XXXXXX (6)
Rogue ----- (-4)
Sorcerer -- (0)
Wizard ---- XX (2)

59

General Chat / Re: Dividing by zero

« on: September 22, 2010, 10:52:18 AM »

Dividing by zero is more an inconvenience (or frustration) to me because whatever calculation or program I was working on comes to a screeching halt. Give me an opportunity to change the last thing I put in, but don't suddenly screw up the whole result just because of an error on my part. Changing the result to NaN (not a number) isn't much better. The idea of "nullity" or whatever it is that supposedly has an answer to dividing by zero sounds more like a way for systems to continue working when that happens (just so they don't have to handle it themselves), and yet you'll still be locked into a predetermined answer (in this case, nullity) that will probably screw up the rest of your calculation.

As for why dividing by zero leads to death and destruction... well, some systems have failed before because dividing by zero made them crash and they neglected to check for that. If the universe divided by zero and forgot to check for that, then you'd probably see the destruction they're talking about. Even if the destruction is usually a black hole.

60

Video Game Chat / Re: Regarding Ratings

« on: September 19, 2010, 06:47:19 PM »

I decided to look up the two games on esrb.org. For Halo: Reach, they mention "Characters are occasionally impaled on glowing swords", "Gun fights are highlighted by realistic gunfire sound effects, explosions, and screams of pain", "players are able to shoot dead enemies, causing more blood to splash out", etc.

Now let's look at Uncharted 2, which got Teen (it got the same content descriptors as Halo in addition to Suggestive Themes and Language). "sneak up on the enemies to perform "stealth kills" (e.g., neck-snapping, choke-holds)", "brief splashes of blood are emitted from characters; more shots—and thus, more blood—are required to kill a growling ice beast"... and then they go on to mention innuendos and language. There's much less of a focus on talking about violence.

So there you go. You get Mature by allowing impalements and shooting dead enemies. Uncharted 1 had to take out shooting fish else it would have gotten slapped with a Mature rating. So shooting animals gets you Mature too.

In other words, yeah, the ratings make no sense. Some games push the M rating more than others. Heavy Rain allows you to possibly cut off a character's finger.

Manhunt 2 was the only game I saw get an AO rating for violence. You'd think if Manhunt 1 couldn't get AO then no amount of violence would. I understand it got it for having less of a reason for the character to do the killings and that the killings may have been even more violent. They had to take out a few things and introduce a blurry tinted filter to get it passed as M. But man, I don't think you really could get much worse than the first game. How is a chainsaw to the face in the first game only M material?

EDIT: Then I find out they did release Manhunt 2 for PC download-only, AO rating.