Search Results

Nomura has a definate favoritism to creating guy character (I shouldn't need to point this out), as such and as pointed out, this creates a gender-rift for "fan pairings". Example: The fact that the Organization + 14th member is a ratio of 1:6 girl-to-guys should be overwhelming proof of this.

Also, seriously, most of his female characters when he writes/creates them have LAME (or very little shown) personalities...up to this point. Hell most yaoi pairings spawn from lack of a good personality, or understandable personality mesh, or EVEN UNDERSTANDABLE "Romantic" INTERACTION/development that is MUTUAL (my personal beef with most of Square's 'pairings' is that they feel forced and just SPAWN out of no where- being saved by someone does NOT spawn LOVE, I'm sorry if anyone believes this, but no it doesn't work like that).
To further clear up the "rampant yaoi pairings" let us use the very popular Sora and Riku one. If Riku was a chick, I seriously doubt anyone would really as rabidly be supporting of the "canon" yet UNSPOKEN (therefore unconfirmed) Sora and Kairi pairing. Most sensible "non-canon" pairings revolve around complimenting and conflicting personalities and actions/reactions. With Sora and Riku you get that, with Sora and Kairi you have the "OMG PERFECT LOVE!". Most pairings (canon and otherwise) that are liked are beautiful because they AREN'T perfect. Most of the time the pairing is in fact, heavily one-sided and flawed! :\

PS: I have no idea why the hell NO ONE pairs up Marluxia with Larxene considering their affiliations with each other. (Having pink hair doesn't make you gay by the way, if we're going by hairstyle over half if not all but three of the Organization is gay by that logic.)

Well due to the lack of MORE VARYING CHARACTER INTERATIONS all this is made possible by the Nomura loophole clause.

Anyway, I've heard of a Xehanort x Darkness, I never quite understood HOW it would work, but I have seen the listing.

Oh and Fuu + Riku; never made much sense unless you're going by pure aesthetics...and even then, WTF?

Actually this just kind of proves that Nomura was a bit color-trigger happy.

PS: Blue = Sora's eyes. (LOL)

Xigbar's surfer-accent damming line:
"COWABUNGA!"

Luxord's start battle line:
"The loser is whoever is the first to run out of time."
Something along those lines...I consider that a battle quote because he has a very passive/specialized battle.

As for the "speak outloud during battles"...depending on the animation company and if it's based off anything as well as the "target audience"...they will talk during battle. Sometimes the talking is to clarify an opponent's ability, this is usually used in shonen manga/anime (ie: Naruto, Bleach, etc.) to help the much younger audience understand. (Note that in Japan it's aimed at a younger group than it is here.)

However some examples of animes with fightscenes with limited to no dialogue would be series such as Ghost in the Shell, Samurai Champaloo, Darker Than Black, and Persona -Trinity Soul- (among others of course). Hopefully this will help you understand why now.

Because originally Organization XIII was called "The 13th Order", which means...kinda just that, the 13th order that doesn't necessarily apply to the number of members. Either way, he technically wouldn't have known their numbers or how many there were based on the name of the group.

Case and Point: Square Enix is the name of an organization.
We have no idea what the hell an "enix" is doing being square, but we still buy games from them.

Another is that there is apparently a "14th member" that is to be revealed in the upcoming game...so really the name of their group doesn't directly pertain to the number of people in the group anymore, more like just a really catchy number- or maybe they'll tell us WHY they named it that in the 365/2 days... c_c. (Read that carefully before commenting on it.)

Maybe, but then again we keep comatose people on life support. We also technically desecrate bodies to remove the organs for organ donations. We're also human, so not all of us are ever on the same page when it comes to seeing the means to meet certain ends.

In my opinion, reproducing an entire body would be procedural if say...as an example someone was to be caught in a car accident and are rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Some would find a new body to be a somewhat sensible way to "cure" it. Another is that cloning is merely replication, what if the cloned body excluded the brain? Does it still have a life if the intent for life was never there? Cloning organs is the same as cloning the body if not in smaller bits. The cloned organ could have been intended to have been part of the nonexistant clone body, does that make it wrong? Maybe I've phrased that oddly:

It's the human illusion of something animate vs something inanimate. An arm or stomach that is cloned seems to be overall deemed "ok" but a cloned body with no brain seems to be deemed immoral, I wonder why. Essentially, what makes a cloned arm/stomach missing a body more acceptable than a cloned body missing a brain?

Hopefully my questioning point will be understood this time.

What's to say cloning isn't merely the next step of replacing limbs that were never there? After all the body is made of flesh, but we are making progress in replacing it with mechnical appendages (those who have needed it thus far anyway). Yes I know this is an odd point considering it regards immortality, but I'm looking at this for merely life-extending purposes. For some reason you all seem to have the idea that just because something that can be used as a replacement comes in a fuller form makes it suddenly immoral.

To be completely objective (or as others may read as utterly cynical and cold), we are merely masses of celluar material which are trying to survive. If we, as a species have acquired a means of extending our lifespans we are technically fufilling that goal.

Anyway as for a more moral standing, we've yet to have defined a soul much less what it takes to really "have" a soul. Given that cloning is in on itself a rather astounding feat, we don't have much to fear about it given a majority of the population would probably not be able to afford it anyway.

Also people on their"immortality is wrong"/ life-extending high horses, quick, abandon modern medicine! By technicality all of the successes of modern medicine were brought to you through various procedures that could be considered immoral by your same standards (how do you think they test the effectiveness of the drug?).

Blah blah blaaaah.

Well in my personal opinion there are people who take things as they come and the doomsday people you group together with the nihilists of the world.

I view "God" as merely a concept that helps people sleep at night, because really, the world has existed longer then the idea of "God" has and the world has kept on spinning. I also view people who rush to the forefront of defending any negativity expressed about their "God" to actually be hiding their uncertainty and insecurities in their belief of "God". True faith requires no words, much less a field of people to save it against any 'insults' made against it (especially if it is true).

Anyway, people who are quick on the idea that "God" (an ominpotent, and allmighty being at that) would be harmed by a mere creation of the human mind is being one of two things: Neurotic or Clearly trying to compensate for their lack of personal esteem in their faith.

Also if 'God" was angry he'd be following his rather nifty instructions detailed in Revelations (well according to Christianity anyway.) He probably would have also have done it in one fell swoop too. Nothing says smited like nonexistence (this applies to any god).

It can but at the same time it can very not mean that at all. The very existence of bacteria/single-celled (eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells if specification is your goal) organisms wouldn't have been understood at the time (just as how sickness and mental ailments were deemed curses, demons or other otherworldly explainations). So a metaphor is somewhat understandable, HOWEVER if "earth" was to be interpreted to be the origin of bacteria, why not water? Water (aquatic life) has been shown to have been the earlier location of life starting point than earthen material (life on land). Then again many of the descriptions of the Bible are too vague and liable for misinterpretation as you have mentioned. However this is not a question of personal interpretations of texts, but a question of if one theory of life is more plausible than the others.

(Other, much more earlier myths suggested that the first humans were also formed from earth into infants which then grew into full humans, however this is depending on the myth you look into. That in on itself means that humans formed from earth/soil is an idea first introduced by the Bible and is in fact predated by several other beliefs beforehand...but this is not a new fact.)

However, in addition to your suggestion and pondering of Eve coming from Adam's rib and connecting it to today's studies, AT BEST I can link it to some form of mass scale mitosis/meiosis cell-division.

The percentage is actually much higher depending on which "ape" you are comparing to (chimpanzees have the highest, sharing 98.2% with humans, and they also have one more chromosome pair than humans; I looked it up for you 8D). Also the reason why they "aren't humans" is for the very same fact we don't lump all other different species of "similiar" animal together as one lump population (also the rule of species which is self-explainatory; if it cannot be crossbred with fertile offspring it is not of the same species). You must also take into account that just because we don't thouroughly understand ape "intelligence" does not make them any less "human". A good example would actually be Coco the gorilla (or any other study done on those of the ape family, but Coco was one I saw at school some time ago and can think of off the top of my head) who was taught human sign language and could effectively use it to communicate. It's rather fascinating....(I'd include the additional points about "need for the evolutionary trait" but White_Rook has already covered that quite well.)

That aside I don't quite understand your arguement concerning the cell that dies and spontaneously comes back to life....that defeats the purpose of evolution and life/death concept all together...so I'm not certain how the statement works in your favor (perhaps you can rephrase it?). Also, many of the first cells that were able to exist were autotrophs...hence when they continued to live. The cell in your example would merely die and most likely its string for "survival" would no longer pop up in the natural genetic pool.
And no, nothing said the Universe was perfectly organized, look at atoms and how they function.
Also the concept of the Bing Bang is just as questionable as how God spontaneously existed to create all of existence. Both are thus far considered spontaneous and having a conundrum of "but there was nothing and then there was suddenly something." The Big Bang theory offers a straight-up answer of SPONTANEOUS EXISTENCE whereas the God/Higher-being idea consists of "well something divine made it, and that divine something has ALWAYS existed, NO MORE QUESTIONS, THANKS."

Unfortunately that would contradict the "and he formed Adam out of mud/earth and Eve from his rib" statement. Therefore the theory of Evolution is not provided as a means of creation through the Bible. The sentiment is appreciated though.

Also it is not a matter of brain size which solely dictates the logic and comprehension processes of the brain, rather it is the immeasurable ability to come to concessions with other ideas that dictates the "ability" of the brain. (IE: Dolphins have larger brains then us in terms of mass, however as far as we know they are not more intelligent than us.)

Anyway, to keep on topic, people claim evolution is still not valid because "we aren't still evolving". Given that we do so many unnatural alterations to ourselves we have what can best be compared to an overflowing pool; another would be the evolutionary points the others have pointed out as well as an add-on about the higher number of C-sections in childbirth as well as the defects in children in general.

Are physical defects a gift from God? Science explains and evidences that the same physical defects come from errors in genetic coding which are linked to the theory of evolution.

...Well, it's not so much of society as the machine named media in my opinion when it comes to matters like that. However the ethic problems with celebrities getting away with unlawful deeds is a fault on the public who, like drug addicts, are addicted to some aspect of that celebrity and are willing to bend the rules to "get another fix". It's ludicrious to people who can see past this, but to people who are "fans" it seems logical...which is really a matter of self-control rather then society.

However, overall, society fawns over the "sad cases" rather then the "normal" or balanced cases....you don't read the newspaper or watch TV about the perfectly or nearly normal people like Jane Susy who's perfectly healthy and happy with life but you hear about poor Emily Doe who nearly killed herself because she was too -insert something sympathetic-.

What the media propogates into society though is the idea that "people will like you if you are this and this" and despite what many people think about their level-esteem....people want to be connected to society, the moreso the better; so to do this they emulate what they might see in popular media in hopes of achieving this. But really, this all spawned from a certain "ideal" of beauty somewhere earlier....

One of some of the aspects of war that peace doesn't provide is a motivation for certain technologies. War, on a "business perspective" is an opportune time for other businesses and economy in terms of commerence as there is a sudden demand for products and marketable resources. Sounds strange maybe, but it is true. War also "creates" some jobs for people, but can also force others into something they don't want to do obviously (refer to listing). War also puts things into perspective on several levels. War helps people get an opinion for themselves (or some might argue, to be brainwashed into another opinion).

War is unfortunately necessary, and even moreseo, has an impact, so that's why it won't be fading out of existence anytime soon.

Setzer?

I dunno, I don't think the role fit the actor (Crispin Freeman) but I didn't find it annoying at all...(and it's not like he isn't a good VA outside of KH2 c_c)

*Most recent piece*
The front claws have amazing detail, however the "shoulder" armor looks a tad too stiff for the mobility you implied in your description. The bumps along the armor is also a nice touch, but again, some of it appears to be inconsistant with the depth you are implying.

The "mouth" also looks slightly odd....I have no idea why but I am reminded of the front wheels of a motorcycle. The opposite side legs seem off in comparision to the legs that we can see in the "front". The legs that are in the foreground however are done suitably well in terms of shading and shine.

The no line method was pulled off quite well here, but if you plan on becoming a concept artist, I hope you plan to add color to your original concepts for further critique. Other than that keep it up.

Aerith, she sounded like she had cancer and was mildly bored and trying to hide it, REF: "We missed you!"

You are certainly one of the better artists of this forum but you do have a ways to go. (I don't mean this in a negative way, I'm just trying to be honest.) From the few concepts I can see from here you can indeed become a concept artist, you just need to refine and practice more. Your proportions seem to be a bit off and the quality of the overall piece tends to vary a little too much for comfort. Some pieces have amazing shading and detail, others do not. I'd suggest finding a style you're comfortable with and stick with mastering that first. I'd also suggest if you are planning on becoming a concept artist to NOT use other's concept artwork, because that is not practicing conceptualization but rather doing a "master drawing exercise" or taking artistic liscense (unless it is stock, ie: photos of reference).

Anyway, best of luck with your work and should you post anymore anytime soon and still want feedback I'd be happy to supply it. :D

(I would actually like to become a concept artist as well, but like you, I still have a long way to go.)

You have stumbled upon a sheerly game mechanic...thing. Mainly its to keep the player from running away to do other things as "in character" for Sora would be to "beat" the boss without running too far away.

Well in my opinion its not over the top as long as it needs to cover the necessary parts...aka doesn't lead to what is termed "indecent exposure"....though I would appreciate if "fashionable people" could wear pants that did the other function of what qualifies pants- which is covering your rear. As much as I love seeing the turd-slicer (thong) and cotton-rump Everests (boxers) each time the person in front of me sits down or bends in any direction, there is a time to draw the line. But that is my personal opinion.

Now as for the "being over the top" part of fashion, its the ridiculous price inflation of clothing I have the most problems with. Simple t-shirts cost 10-20 even 30 dollars is not logical at all.