Search Results

Russian girls, hm?

Well, games this generation, looks more realistic, has more characters on screen, has ragdoll physics which is pretty good, more animations, etc. Y'know, was gonna list more, but you get it.

I've had more fun with these latest generations, and I've appreciated the scale of them. The storylines are something important to me in gaming, and recently that's what's been explored more than ever before. So yeah, New is my vote.

Easily newer consoles. They're more powerful, more compact, more aesthetically pleasing, less technically flawed, less prone to unfixable bugs.
I mean if we're really not going to go on games, it's obviously going to be modern consoles, and will almost always be modern consoles because of tech progression.
Not to mention, the controllers fit in our hands more naturally and have analogue sticks. Two wonders of gaming advancement.

I was taught Sperm Competition theory as well in Psychology, I know what you're talking about for sure and it has a lot of merit behind it, I don't deny that at all. I'm trying to put across is that human behaviour is diverse over the whole species, and that our behaviour has developed further than most other species in terms of sexual behaviour, so this theory, while applicable tat times, it isn't a full explanation of all individuals. If you want arguments against sperm competition theory and that the male seeks out multiple mates in order to reproduce, than look at monogamy, homosexuality, celibacy, asexualisation to name the few that pop into my head. Those types of sexual behaviour all exist, the fact is not every man believes in sleeping with every female they can, I myself don't.
These instincts you are describing would have predominately been a part of pre-civilisation homo sapiens and homo erectus, the first beginnings of proper sperm competition theory of our species from ancestors as a way for the species to survive. As human brain power and intelligence has expanded, it has resulted in a diversification of all types of behaviour including sexual behaviour, like the ones I listed. What most theories fail to account for when it comes to the application of hat is considered natural, is that behaviour in our species has not stagnated as other species have, we quickly progress along multiple options as we develop. What may have been completely applicable to the species in the past may not be around three generations down the line. Environmental factors influenced human culture and in turn attitudes toward sex over the centuries, which is why Christianity sees sexual drive and a sin whilst Hinduism developed the Kama Sutra. Humans are not so simple as to be encompassed in one theory, and it's why we have so many applied to us, and why Psychology can't explain everything, even with empirical evidence.

The fact it's a theory means it's a developed idea posed around evidence gathered. Saying 'this truth' is a false statement. Saying we males have sperm is truth, saying we have sperm for X reason is not. And hold the insults, they don't support your argument nor make you seem any more reputable for insulting my intelligence.

I wasn't making it a moral or ethical issue, I was telling you the facts. You can't avoid someone completely and wholly if you both go to the same place and know the same people, you're going to cross paths in some form, that's almost inevitable. It wouldn't change even if you blocked the member entirely, because if you go on Skype with other KHVidians or read posts of others mentioning a member you don't like, we can't blacklist their name out or tell people to be quiet about talking with or about said member.
What I'm saying, is that when you do cross paths, especially in the tiniest ways, we can't tell someone to go away for you if they are doing nothing rule breaking. That is when each individual will have to deal with it themselves in their own way, because if members consistently asked us to deal with problems like some you don't like waid your name or tried to reply to you civilly, we would definitely be 'mummying' members.

At the end of the day, most of the staff are responsible for dealing with rule breaking and enforcing said rules. I'm not coming from a place as staff of KHV when i'm telling you this (i was making an example of members interacting mainly) but someone who has been on this forum for over five years. The way I ignored members was by dealing with each individual poster, and back in 2007, you had to ignore people of your own accord as much as possible, we had no ignore button when someone would make jokes at us or insulted us, we had to deal with it. Having an ignore feature in place is a great step to people who rile you up or irritate you and don't ruin your experience on the site. But Staff can't forcibly police and monitor what individual members posts about each other than we already do, and we won't take action until we see it fit.
At some point and in some capacity members have to have their own ability to deal with things, like other members and I had to do in the past, like not opening posts up of members you have ignore, we can't control if you want to open up their posts, that's up to the individual.

As much as I understand the positives some members can get out of qn ignore feature, I would like to point out that even if half the features here were included, it's not going to magically mean you're happier or that your problems go away. A social community in any medium such as real life or online means that in reality you won't be able to ignore someone one hundred percet of the time. Imagine this place as a school grounds, as soon as you access yourself to the school you have the potential for encountering everyone in that community, you can see your friends, people you don't know and people you may not like. As much as you might avoid then as much as possible, their name may crop up, or they may post a thread that gets popular or something like that. When you are in that community you have a potential to interact with any member of that community.

Sometimes in life you have to just cope and deal with it, get better at processing your thoughts to ignore the problem and avoid it instead of hoping this feature will do it for you, because like I said it's not a guaranteed success all of the time. And especially if you hear about that member off site, where we have no jurisdiction to implement such a feature, sometimes it's best if that person processes their problem more effectively than we can help them with it.

I mean, as staff, in the past, i've had problems with members who can get aggressive or insulting and in a professional and personal manner i can not just ignore them away, i'm sure many staff here and elsewhere know what i mean and it's just developing yourself and enhancing your abilities to develop the ability in order to cope with people causing you problem.

I'm confused, it's not a game but a film? I'm not really sure if by 'film rights' and 'feature length' negate the concept of a game, but sound slike it.

It's interesting, being within other people's minds, Psychonauts did this wonderfully as a concept.

I've only ever played Scrapland by McGee which was fun and interesting, but was in a bargain bin for a reason. He's a little bit like the lesser known version of Tim Schafer and his games. Hopefully whatever this is can get some sort of concept developed further and built upon.

Hope you got some satisfying sleep afterwards, ha.

Not exactly, humans are more diverse than simple animal instincts, we have them but we also additionally have the higher brain functions and range of emotional development as we do. We are creatures that can fall in love and stay with one partner for our whole lives or sleep with anything with a pulse for our whole lives. Sexual desire is more base than partner selection. And you're probably going to tell me it was a turn of phrase but I thought it was worth noting.

About as selfish as wanting to live i'd say. I mean, your view of having a kid being selfish because it will cause a carbon footprint, begs the extremist viewpoint of why not just kill yourself or others, since that also leads to a reduced carbon footprint per human. It also makes me wonder if you'd praise serial killers for being conservationist since they've killed people and ceased their carbon footprint, and that they've technically done good things for the environment.

But your argument that things could go either way doesn't really support you side of the argument or the opposing side, since it's a middle opinion that either good or bad could happen and that both sides can argue.
Whilst having a child might mean creating a carbon footprint, i think carbon footprint is a bit of a demonised term thanks to the media. Every creature from the animal kingdom produces a carbon footprint, that's unavoidable, and it's not the end of the world if they create one. Cows produce mega amounts of methane, and have for a millennia and beyond, but the ozone layer hasn't crashed, nor has the waste they produce stayed around in a pile in a field for centuries. The carbon footprint isn't a permanent thing that will never go away, indeed, plant life recycles the carbon we produce naturally, like the tree example i gave. If we didn't produce any carbon, plant life would cease to exist, no nutrients in the soil no carbon dioxide to breath, all their sources of life gone. Nature is harmoniously balanced that it moderates all of these factors that allows both sides to equally benefit from each other, a kind of grand symbiosis.
Humans having built machines and developed technology that produces a carbon footprint about 10 times the average person 300 years ago would have, has shifted the careful balance nature held, causing this worry of a massive carbon footprint in the world since nature can't naturally sustain the increase in the production of carbon. This is why we recycle and find new renewable energy, to correct the imbalance modern living has caused upon the Earth. And if you're thinking why even bother or something to that effect, it is because this earth and its atmosphere is what sustains us, without a healthy earth, we all die, maybe not any time soon or in this lifetime, but all that you once were will die with the future of humanity.

People having their own children and saying that's why you don't believe in being environmentally friendly seems a poor excuse to just not do anything, when it could be your inaction to be environmentally friendly that is creating this greater carbon footprint than that child could potentially make in the future. Could be, could not, we don't know empirically the total sum of it all. What we do know is that we are, at some level, creating an imbalance and as such should work towards creating a more harmonious balance.

There are other options?

Biased people ignore the negatives of an argument, if you want a fair assessment, you don't want one type of group telling you 'the way it is' when there are many opinions on what 'it' even is. Especially drug users who develop an addiction, who rely on drugs and want it legalised because their addiction has given them false reinforcement behaviour and cognitive delusions. If a drug makes you feel good but is likely going to increase your chance of dying each time you take it, it's hard to tell if it is a 'benefit' and if it actually 'benefits' the population of a country as a whole and not just this small group.

I didn't really think to argue against points? I just thought we were suppose to post them. But if you're opening up that avenue:

Having kids is a natural instinct, the reason we have sex drives and sensitive sexual organs is to give us the incentive to create said troglodytes. And the whole long term and short term ecological footprint you're putting forward is very far from each other and not entirely accurate. For example, your child could go into conservationism and tackle some of their carbon footprint by cultivating forest, etc, and the destruction of the trees could potentially have a greater negative effect. Humans live for say 80-100 years lets say, whilst trees can potentially live 5 times on average, hell the oldest known tree is around 9,550 years old, that thing surely trumps the garage alone. The thing is, we don't know exactly about pollution and carbon footprints and all their long term effects, and the primary idea of coservationsim is seeing how long we can keep the world going, like our own lives.

And I wouldn't call myself a tree hugger, but i think philosophy and science has all agreed that there are limited resources on this planet, as well as limited space and we need to best utilise what little we have. Waste is wasteful, allows progression to slow and causes negative effects like pollution which leads to health issue and blah blah. Living in London with the cars and all those harmful gases has given me asthma, believe me, trees are the healthier option and better looking. It's one of those 'if the whole human race pulled together, we could change the world' kinda things, but that's the problem with individuality, we alone make little difference to the world, it is only as a whole can we hope to change the way of things. It's why we create groups like Feminism, Marxism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, because it is the institution, the combined body of humans, that builds and destroys our world and changes things forever.

Eh, I find users of drugs are the main people who want it legalised, so it's a bit biased. Whilst the rest who want it legalised are usually people who are like 'no censor, no laws, freedom for all!' and who primarily argue that since it's illegal and up to personal decision it should be legal, so again a bit biased, since it's a viewpoint that primarily doesn't incorporate proof that is reliable, since they'll only accept the evidence that supports them instead of the whole argument
The rest of the people either don't care, or are oppossed to it. A few are just well informed and unbiased.

As to evidence, i've switched back and forth between what is science and what's a social experiment, it's hard to tell with certain published work what factors were reliable or accurate enough. And it depends on the drug, of course. In general i'm fine with the system now, though I think marijuanna shouldn't be as severe a punishment, it's one of the least negatively affecting drugs. Then again, legalising it would be easier to control and that's the only argument i agree with fully as to why it should be legalised, other reasons i'm not as committed. And legalising heroine wouldn't help users of heroine, not to mention would cause a lot of trouble from the legislation, businesses cropping up, drug market controlled by these narcotics, social backlash and morality, and so on.

It was alright.

With Month there, I knew fight scenes would look and be epic, unfortunately, everything else felt a bit stiff and fake I suppose. The facial animations could've been more accurate, I think the characters need more prominent features like bigger eye brows or mouths or something like that.

The look reminds me of Gravity Rush but with more sterile and primary colours everywhere. Wish there were more details to the characters wince they look like their designs are quiet simple in colour and features which makes it seem a bit bare bones. Also, I am a little annoyed at the silhouetted pedestrians/passengers/non-plot important people, since it kind of drags me a way from things and makes me think about it being a bit lazy to not even design basic templates

I like the creativity but it does feel a lot like most other anime stories told before. Monsters, monster school, childish students, magical beings, that whole guy being sick on the zeppelin screams cliché as he is going to be a prominent and key character in the narrative. If they included pompous rival with two stooges crossing their arms and looking smug whilst they insult the main character, it would have been too much to bare.

It did an alright job at introducing some of the characters shown, but left a few things a bit blank, but for 12 minutes, alright for what it was. I'm feeling Naruto vibes here.

Honestly, heard worse voice acting in professional dubs and in movies, not gonna complain for semi professional VAs who don't work full time as VAs. They are good for what they are.

First episodes usually are meh, but that's my opinion on most shows, just nothing has gripped me yet, seeing as the trailers pretty much spoiled most of the main characters weapons and abilities, which I usually look forward to discovering as a show goes on.

Yo man, want me to change RWBY trailer thread to just RWBY or Rooster Teeth's RWBY?

And then they all lived Happily Ever After!!!

And got fat from the royalties.

Oh not everyone cares, but it's not something you can ignore really, unless you go as hermit as possible.

I found it silly that the BBC, I believe, interviewed a woman who had a baby the same day as Kate did. Like it was related in any significant way and was new worthy or something... -__-

But I did laugh when the interviewer asked her 'How do you think Kate is?' and this woman looked tired as hell from just having her first child, I thought 'You really think she gives a toss about Kate right now?! XD'

So King George VII? This kid'll be King before a FFVII remake! : P

Why fine, thank you. Kind of you to enquire.

Are you keeping well yourself, hm?

: 3
You're so funny too

Stop making so much noise about it.

I've heard a few of these concepts before (Prothean design in ME1 and Human Reaper) in interviews and on the Mass Effect Wiki, but pictures next to them is lovely. And some of this i've never heard, even better.

It's good to see how varying the ideas were throughout the design of the games, it shows the creativity of it all

Thank you, libre.