PffgOD DAMN IT ED STOP DIFFUSING MY RAGE WITH HUMOR
Did she ever want to do it with a dog toy
THAT'S BECAUSE HIS BODY IS BEING VIEWED FROM AN ANGLE YOU MOST PERSPICACIOUS FUCKIN' INTELLECTUAL
Cuuuute. c: Like the outfit, like the face & the hair, very striking. I wouldn't expect the colors to work, but they do. That said, the hat seems like an afterthought; the dark red doesn't really go with anything and the hat itself kinda sits on top of the head instead of fitting it. That and the fingers are a little clawlike, might want to use smoother edges. Otherwise cool piece.
YO WHAAAAAAAAT
I've always been partial to Oathkeeper, but I guess that's just me. And yeah not sure if the X-Blade counts as a proper Keyblade? Idk.
psh lightweights
ARRIGHT LOSERS GET OUT OF MY THREAD EVERY... BODY... OOOOUT!
NONE CAN DEFEAT... Spoiler
I CAN'T THINK OF A CLEVER OR SUBTLE JOKE BUT EVERYONE WHO GETS IT WILL PROBABLY CHUCKLE ANYWAY AND EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T WOULDN'T IF I WERE A SMARTER PERSON
I used to have the Zelda Collection disc you could only get as a Nintendo Power subscriber, but I lost it. Just as well, probably wouldn't have wanted to keep it anyway; the games froze every couple hours, and the save screens were poorly integrated and somehow made the games more likely to freeze. E: Oh yeah! I guess the original Disgaea counts. Totally own that, manual and all. :L
...
Don't know whether to say not all of the qualities in this article are exclusive to introverts... or to just call myself an introvert. I guess I have both intro and extro aspects. In which case I can personally affirm that there are some introverts out there who aggressively defy the stereotype. I think the last point is the most important; it takes all kinds to rock the world, and introverts are not problems to be fixed.
Beyond issues of personal space or any sensual connotations, a hug can be an extreme gesture of vulnerability for many people. It says, on a subconscious level, that the one receiving needs comfort and the one offering is in a position to give it. That's probably what your friend meant by regaining control; maybe he saw it as an act of sympathy, and didn't want to be seen as someone who needed sympathy. Not saying it's right, just trying to unpack the thought process.
This brings up a lot of things I've always wondered about in these arguments. The big one is: What makes strength so important to a character? It's far from the only virtue, and rarely the most important, even in games that feature these archetypes in their basest form. A character who lacks the strength to defend themselves - once - isn't weak. Otherwise Link would come off pretty weak in the games where Zelda has to save his ass right at the end when Ganon gets the drop on him. Anyway, my only gripe is that there isn't as much variation as there could be. There are a few good examples in the video, but really, there aren't that many male damsel-type characters. The only one I could think of before watching was Otacon. I'd also like to see more female main characters, whether or not they're rescuing their boyfriend; I think it's fair to say that there are more male player characters in the world than female, and the ladies deserve as many characters with which to identify and in which to immerse themselves. Gaming is an industry, true, but it is also an art form. It has its own things to say about the state of the world and the experiences we hold dear, and it can evoke deep and vivid emotions in the player. In my mind these messages, experiences, and evocations should vary in form and function as much as the people receiving them, and I cannot truly be proud of the medium unless it is marching in that direction, no matter its sales figures. A game does not have to settle for selling; it can be a technical masterpiece, a stirring coming-of-age tale, or a thoughtful social commentary, and still be fun and engaging and sell like netbooks on Black Friday. The more variation there is, the less egregious the damsel in distress appears, as it becomes but one of many possibilites.
...Good point. But we don't know how the D Key got there. I don't think it follows that Xehanort and Vanitas's Keyblades are light. It'd seem awfully silly for the antagonist of the series to use a light Keyblade, even if he could channel his powers through either type. And if the Keyblade is an extension of the self, then the reason we've seen mostly light ones thus far is because we've seen mostly light wielders thus far; it stands to reason that Vanitas, a being of pure dark, would project a dark Keyblade. Even so, it's explicitly stated in the reports that the Heartless consume the heart and thereafter a new Heartless is created. All evidence indicates that the heart never reaches Kingdom Hearts if it is consumed by the darkness. Kingdom Hearts may very well serve as a temporary haven for purified hearts, and the events of KHII would seem to support this; the Kingdom Hearts seen therein is made of the hearts Sora releases from the Heartless. You're reading too much into the comment. It is much more likely from the context that Vanitas is not a proper wielder of the Keyblade, not that he doesn't have one of his own. He shouldn't have one, because he lacks control; but the darkness in his heart artificially buffs his ability to handle it. That says nothing of whether his Keyblade belongs to anyone but himself. Again, this only makes it more likely to me that Xehanort gave him one, similarly to how Riku gave Kairi one.
Fair, but I only meant that to say that not all Keyblade wielders were dark users in the beginning. How do we know that? Has anyone ever said that's a criterion? Besides, he's the pure malice of an individual; I can't see that having anything to do with the light, no matter where it originated. I don't think that's how it works. The light and dark realms aren't equivalent; for one, it is ostensibly harmful for most people to traverse the dark realms, even if they are dark users or wield a dark Keyblade. Knowing they're not equivalent, nothing is to say that it's necessary or even typical for dark Keyblade wielders to come from the respective realm. Maybe they just spend time in it to forge their Keyblade, work up their dark resistance, so on and so forth. It would be somewhat the equivalent of physical training under harsh conditions, like on the lip of a volcano. I don't think there necessarily must be "anti humans." And there is reason not to suspect people willingly inhabit the dark; as I said, it's a poisonous atmosphere. Not to mention, even those well-versed in the dark have no business there, because... well, it's kind of empty. The light world is ripe for conquest, and thus makes a juicier target for anyone sufficiently studied in the dark arts. That said, there may be dark users who prefer seclusion to expansion. Perhaps it's not the dark realm that needs explained, so much as things that relate to it or appear to hail from it. However, the realm itself retains an air of mystery that I think is intentional and important to its function. It's unknown. It could be dangerous. It frightens the faint of heart. The mechanics of the Keyblades could always use a little more background, though. But their manufacture is what makes them impure. They were created. Forced into the world through unnatural means. The pureblood Heartless naturally occur in the null space where an individual loses their heart to the darkness. They are, thus, made of pure darkness as filtered into a weakened heart. Being pure does not mean the purebloods are blank slates with no intelligence; it means they are naturally formed, organic. They are the originals. Whenever a heart anywhere in the many worlds succumbs to dark influences, it becomes a Heartless, no matter what; because that is the form the darkness takes in this plane. The only difference between purebloods and emblems is that someone creates the latter by artificially recreating the process. Emblems are lab-grown, purebloods are bred in the field. Sora, Scar, and ASoD are all purebloods because when they fell to darkness, they were consumed by the pure, raw dark energy of the collective. The same thing happened to every pureblood; there is no difference, except that Scar and ASoD retained unique forms and intelligence, because the darkness was so strong within them to begin with. They are, in a way, the dark side of their untainted selves, but that dark side was brought out by the pure power of darkness, not simply by them turning. They had to open their hearts to be consumed. Every Heartless is the dark side of their former self, emblem or not. Emblem Heartless don't just grow out of the ground; they're created in the same manner as a pureblood, but by a human's hand. From Ansem Report 2: So the process is roughly the same, the difference is that somebody is toying with a person's heart when they become an emblem. It's still their dark side, but they weren't the ones to bring it out. So that's not what separates emblems and purebloods; what separates them is that, to form a pureblood, the darkness has to find a heart of its own accord. Thus they spring from the source. Creating an emblem is like adding darkness to that which already exists in the world. E: Actually, now that I'm re-reading some things, I might have mixed up the origin of the Emblems. The reports from KHII seem to indicate in a one-off statement that Emblems are synthesized directly from Purebloods? But the basic skeleton of the argument here is intact; purebloods are born when a heart lets the darkness into it, they don't just spontaneously appear when somebody turns evil. The catalyst is the power of the dark realm, and the heart first has to be subsumed into this before it can become a Heartless. A better report to quote to get my point across would be Report 4 from the first Kingdom Hearts: They "absorb" (or eat) a heart, and crap out a Heartless. Inelegant, but it gets the point across. They're more than just the worse halves of the people who were consumed. In that light, I would guess that Vanitas is what happens when someone's darker half spontaneously renounces its humanity. So the real anti-human here is the Unversed.
Mm... Risky, bringing in more characters. It's a question of whether each will be fun to play in their own right. I also hope that each one has a compelling, fleshed-out story and there are no repeats of the first game's "true" ending. That or less story, more carnage. Totally acceptable in this case.
It's not "Sie sind" in the first part, it's "Sind sie" And it's not "und" it's "nein" "Und" would make no fuckin' sense I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT MUCH GERMAN WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THIS
IS FIX :D
