It sounds like Japanese that got screwed up into jibberish. I swear I hear 'korekara' in there somewhere, then it just becomes meaningless trash. @Mish: For shame!
It's actually pretty catchy. EDIT: Pretty funny to listen to this while playing Resistance.
More and more games are using them? I beg to differ. Turn-based was definitely the most popular type of gameplay for most RPGs in the past, but lots of developers have turned to real-time gameplay. There are a lot more action RPGs out there now--I don't think there's a single PS1 RPG that has featured real-time gameplay (I may be wrong, however). As well, turn-based gameplay has seen some changes that make it more 'real-time' than before. For example, it's true in older RPGs you could literally take a break during a boss battle when it's your turn (as monsters won't attack you until you've completed your turn). However, many RPGs that still feature turn-based systems really force you to press the pause button before taking breaks because even if it's your turn and you remain in-active, enemy monsters will still continue to hit you (as they run off their own independent attack delay).
I agree. Spending money on abstinence programs is a waste of time, in my opinion.
My mistake, it's actually supposed to be preemptive, so cross out that hyphen. If that still doesn't help, preemptive basically means to perform an action that will in turn disable your opponent from acting they way they probably wished to.
For a 12 year-old, I must say I'm impressed with the tone of your writing. It could use some improvement, but with you being as young as you are, it's hardly worth complaining about, and I'm certain you'll only get better if you keep at it. Your narrative skill is definitely notable, but your accuracy is lacking a little. For example: If both people present in this sentence were male, you'd have a classic case of 'ambiguous reference'. So although you could easily pick out he as Saix because your other character is female, had a male been the one to lunge at Saix, the reader would have to think twice about who exactly is the one possessing this newly introduced weapon. It's only common (and pretty much law) that we group dependent clauses together with independent ones, but the problem here is that you have two equally independent ideas--that is, someone lunging at Saix, and Saix taking out a weapon. These two ideas oppose each other in an equally important manner, yet your sentence structure is biased toward your independent clause and leaves your dependent one with much less emphasis: this is how you make your 'reference' ambiguous. Easily fixed, just rewrite the sentence (or make two separate ones if necessary) to address both thoughts/ideas equally: The other bit that I felt lacked in the sample sentence I quoted was the lack of symmertry. You stated that 'she lunged for Saix' to slash him, *but* 'in a flash of grey, Saix had a weapon of his own'. "But" implies that 'her slash' is negated or cancelled out by the proceding action or description. Now by your narrative, we know that Saix's weapon evidently causes 'her attack' to fail, but we don't know how. Logically, even though you blatantly state 'but' to assure the reader that Saix remains unharmed, the linear thought process would be that Saix summons his weapon, but still gets slashed by 'her attack' anyway. Thus, I took the liberty in assuming that Saix's weapon blocks 'her attack', and as such provided the additional information to describe such an event. Although it's a common literary device to leave ambiguity around your writing when you want to leave something to interpretation or not give something away that you want to reveal later, it's also important to accurately describe each exchange that happens between people. This is so your readers know exactly what is going on and aren't confused or surprised when Bob suddenly drops dead because they were unaware that he had taken a fatal blow to the back minutes before. Hope this helps, and I apologize if you didn't need me to tell you some of these things. EDIT: One last thing, and this is just mechanics now, you didn't need to capitalize the 'a' in Asked in your dialogue tag. I know you probably thought you had to because the quote ended with a question mark, but I'm pretty sure it's allowed.
Looking forward to the second season in the Fall. I feel like it's ages since Shakugan no Shana ended. I haven't seen the movie yet either... And Shana is the #1 Lolita girl of all time.
Have you seen the others? It's called Shana-tan, or something of the like. I remember watching the first few eps of it--although I quickly lost interest.
23 pages, good lord. XD
Yeah, Strike Freedom (ZGMF X20A). It has the thermal shields and the golden joints.
Love is an unstable emotion. While it gives us happiness, love will also bring us sadness and grief when a loved one dies, or anger when a loved one is taken away from us, or jealousy when the one we love seems to not pay enough attention, etc. Thus, love wouldn't be an ideal thing to have in a 'stable' society. There is no room for love in a world of stability. That's a little cynical. Most deaths are caused by disease and natural causes. I'm pretty sure more people die of malnutrition, old age and disease than because of murder.
Wii not having DVD capabilities or HD is the reason why it's more 'affordable' out of all the next-gen. Make no mistake, if Wii had such things, it would've been around the same price as the 360 and PS3. However, Nintendo has already made the statement that they promote 'good gameplay' and aren't too suckered in by the need to please with great graphics, or multifunctional purposes. With all that said and done, they don't seem to be keeping their end of the bargain. Super Mario Galaxy and Super Paper Mario seem to validate this 'good innovative gameplay', but as a whole they're severely holding back on their promise.
Antidepressants alter chemical reactions, more specifically--the more commonly used ones today, SSRIs, slow the reuptake process at serotonin synapses. You can't directly justify antidepressant usage on animals as proof that they have emotions. I don't want to keep repeating myself, but I will: You only say this because you know what it's like to have emotions. If you never experienced this to begin with, you wouldn't be able to say this statement. Try to think about it objectively.
I could've sworn I've seen that Sora necklace in their inventory years ago. The Keyblade and Roxas one is new to me, however.
Well, it's always a responsible thing for any online buyer to do their homework before ordering from a site. If a site looks suspicious, don't buy from it. eBay is pretty safe because they have the Buyer Protection system, where you can get your money back if you didn't receive the product that was advertised. For others, always read the return/refund policies. The reason why I never ordered from Yes-Asia was because I wasn't satisfied with their return/refund policy when I read about it. I preferred Play-Asia. There are enough buyers from Yes-Asia here to give their testimonies on Yes-Asia's legitimacy, though.
As a owner of the Wii, I will say: Yes, the Wii remote/nunchuk system is innovative and fun. It's quite possibly the most unique gameplay configuration I've seen. However, on a personal level, the software is lacking. There aren't any games I see that have made excellent use of such a system or any titles that spark my interest. While I did purchase the Wii for Super Smash Bros Brawl, I sincerely hope that won't be the last game I buy for the Wii. So in that respect, I'm a little happy about the changes made by these companies.
Please refer to the thread HigherBeing specified, thanks. - Closed -
I don't live in the United States, so this thread doesn't pertain to me. ;p And yeah, I said that for a reason.
FFXIII and VsXIII have already been confirmed as PS3 titles... a long time ago.
Yeah, eating is a physiological need. You don't have to have emotions in order to do that. Many of you seem to be missing the major upside of not having emotions, or free-will for that matter. If you discern correctly, if we all didn't have our elaborate emotions, and followed a specific course of life that we were born and fated to do; we would basically achieve global stability. No wars would start because no one would hate each other, no one would disagree because we wouldn't be able to 'think outside' our primary programming. No one would go hungry or thirsty because we'd never have the chance to become that famished. No one would be 'unhappy'; we'd all be 'content'. The assumption again is that this is how things had always been from birth till death, so you can't 'miss' what you haven't experienced because you wouldn't know any better. Now obviously to do this there needs to be sacrifices. Art, beauty, passion, inspiration, etc would all have to be thrown away. Today, we live in a world inevitably flourished with 'chaos'--where our free-will drives us in many different directions. Wars occur, racism exists, disputes between others on many aspects of life exist because we have the ability to think for ourselves and act accordingly to a certain degree. Now obviously if we are able to have these extremes and infinite amount of things, we learn a vast variety of things and attain all sorts of knowledge. While we can all agree this sounds like a nice arrangement, it is also the reason why wars still happen, why people murder, why racism still exists, etc. Now don't get me wrong, in light of all that, I still a prefer a life like the one we live in now, with our emotions and with our free-will, but I do admit that by removing off of these things, global stability is quite a possibility. And please do continue to spout your justifications for why 'that would suck and why it's not being alive', but just remember that you only know this because you've already experienced what it's like to have emotions and have free-will. You wouldn't be able to say such things had you been born into a world such as the one I described earlier.
