I' ll leave this here. http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.p...acters-were-all...Cats&highlight=Docpurr+Doom
This actually looks like a step up to me, I' d rather have him at the forefront of game development once again, even for smaller projects (as if Nes Mario and Zelda were big projects ...). I' m sure the young generation can survive without having Miyamoto constantly telling them what they should or shouldn' t do. You misspelled his name in the thread tittle btw.
I admire his courage actually. I just figured it would be a good thing to mention that Google Translate is super crappy. Just in case he didn' t already know that.
Maybe all his posts are Google Translations.
That' s quicker, sure, but since Gandalf is obssessed about keeping the ring/hobbit hidden he probably thinks that dangling it in the air, exposed to everyone' sight from miles around, wouldn' t be the wisest move ever. Legolas and himself aside the whole fellowship wouldn' t be able to fight mid-air. If Frodo falls it' s game over, and the ennemy has a shitload of flying things (like, say, seven ring-sensing freaking Nazguls). We could also think of many believable plot devices that would have put an abrupt end to a flight attempt and forced them all to resume walking. Conveniently, the eagles had other things in mind at that moment anyway. I guess so (or, as Aberforth would put it, Dumbledore just loved pulling everyone' strings into doing his own errands).
Lol yeah, but come on, "we don' t have a story otherwise" isn' t the best character motivation a writer could come up with. I' m sure you can think of reasons that would make a flying trip to Mount Doom a bad, bad idea.
In the end his line of thinking was disrupted, it went from "Harry tells me he survived the dementors err ... somehow" to "Harry was saved by his father' s patronus", which is a big enough clue to suggest a time-travel shmilblick occurred, but I don' t think it hurts your argument. However Dumbledore proved in the fifth book that he could single-handedly Abracadabra his way out of five ministry employees without even interrupting his Daily Prophet reading. Why would he not save Sirius himself then ? If Harry and Hermione managed to save Sirius riding a hyppogriph then surely Dumbledore could have freed him in his sleep. Was it all about Buckbeak then ? Dumbledore didn' t seem phased at all by Buckbeak' s unfortunate fate, but I can' t think of any other motive to choose a time-travel plan. Unless Sirius had already been moved from Hogwarts by that time (can' t remember) ? Edit : Wait ... were you talking about the third or the fifth book ? In the fifth book if memory serves Dumbledore just cannot predict that Sirius will die, he knows that Sirius wasn' t abducted at all. If Dumbledore had decided to use a time-turner at that moment his goal would have rather been to prevent Harry from going to London.
Yeah, I just figured that out, damn that was silly. :stupid: And god knows you don' t like that ! TBH I don' t really understand that last comment of yours, care to expand a bit ?
Lol, sorry, Rogue is French for Snape. ^^ Snape doesn' t have to tell Dumby who the message is really from.
Dumbledore can send Rogue back in time to warn past Dumby about the ring and to tell him to send future Rogue back in time later on, same message same time same place same time-travel departure date. If they plan their timing and meeting point carefully Rogue never meets his double. How does that not work ?
I thought Harry didn' t care about nor understood paradoxes ? The Sirius thing wouldn' t create a paradox since nothing happened to Sirius anyway, but they can' t know that, I' ll give you that. However if Dumbledore can send himself a warning I' m sure he can add "P.S. send someone back in time to give you this same message", if he' s not intelligent enough to figure that out by himself that is.
The Death Eaters hold Sirius hostage but he' s not dead yet => let' s all risk our skin and fly to London instead of using a time-turner to send a simple warning. I' ve been poisoned by a bloody ring but I' m not dead yet => let' s not send someone back to warn my sorry ass. No really, if they could indeed change things using time-turners I don' t get why they only used it once. Oh well, as long as I don' t re-read the book I guess I can' t really set my heart on anything anyway.
Well if you assume you can change the past then it automatically leaves room for the butterfly effect, you can' t have one without the other. Unless you wipe it out with a "it' s magic" excuse of course, but wouldn' t that be free will-messing magic ? As I pointed out being able to change the past leaves room for resurrection and a bunch of other awesome stuff. If time-turners could be used as lightly as you make it sound then why would the Dumby Gang use it just this once ? If I was them I would use it at every tiny problem thrown my way.
I' m not sure he' s that dumb, but why not. For some reason movie-Harry seems a lot dumber to me than book-Harry. :lolface: What I meant was that Dumbledore has no way to ensure a butterfly effect won' t come back to bite them in the ass, as careful as Hermione might be. It comes out as a gamble and I don' t picture Dumby as a gambler at all. Also technically, if your theory is valid then it does leave room for resurrection (Rowling specified more than once it is absolutely impossible no matter what). When the movie writers made a change Rowling wasn' t happy with she always stepped in (for instance she didn' t let them turn Dumbledore into a heterosexual), so I guess she' s fine with the movie explaining the closed time line in a clear way. I' m sure you' re aware of that, but I wonder something : have you read the book after you came up with this theory ? Just to make sure that, gambler Dumbledore and Rowling vision aside, there aren' t any rock-throwing-like elements in the plot that would ruin your theory ?
Why the hell would he intervene, he would have nothing to gain and everything to loose. It would deprive him of the one memory allowing him to cast a patronus in the first place. He cannot predict in any way that he will create a stable time-line with a new set of memory that works. I' m not especially fond of closed time-lines, or time-travel really, but what you' re suggesting implies that Harry and Hermione success relies on sheer insolent random luck, they change things on a whim, not thinking of the consequences and even less able to predict them, and yet somehow all ends well. On one hand it would be even poorer writing to me (but that' s just personal taste so who cares, both are Deus ex-machina in the end), and on the other hand I doubt Dumbledore would have let them try their luck at messing with the time-line under such conditions. A reckless and foolish yet lucky Harry ? That I can wrap my mind around, but a reckless and foolish Dumbledore ? Just ... no. ^^
I like the part about Voldemort' soul being what the dementors actually sucked out. As for your problem with fixed time-loops I don' t share it : if causality rules everything I don' t see why the electric signals of our brains, i.e. our thoughts, would be the only thing in the whole universe that gets a free pass. I think along the lines of the Oracle in The Matrix, free will is an illusion, we' re not making choices per se, we merely try to understand why we made them. But I digress. I read Azkaban just once, years ago, so Dumbledore' s "time-travel 101" explanations are pretty foggy in my mind (I suspect the man to be jocking about half of them anyway, it wouldn' t be out of character), so are my memories of the book please correct me if I say wacky things. There' s one thing that bugs me with your theory : you forgot the butterfly effect. For example whether Harry does or doesn' t buy the book changes a shitload of things. It is possible that the plot as a whole was unaffected, but the Potterverse as a whole is undeniably changed. If he didn' t buy the book he didn' t get to the library, and every single object or person he should have interacted with on this trip suddenly wasn' t interacted with by Harry. Who knows, maybe Harry would have died if he hadn' t gone to the library. No one can predict the butterfly effect, not even Hermione, it would be foolish from Dumbledore to presume otherwise. We have the same kind of problem with the "Harry did or didn' t rescue himself" plot. Besides, even before we get to that point, in what you call the original time-line, future Hermione doesn' t throw a rock to warn present Hermione that Fudge is coming, so present Hermione and Harry get stucked at Hagrid' s, and so then ... ???? In the book or the movie we clearly see that future Hermione does everything she can to make the present (her past) coincide with her memories of it. Let' s say there was indeed an original time-line in which Fudge met present Hermione and Harry at Hagrid' s (because there was no future Hermione to throw a rock) then why would future Hermione ever decide to throw that damn rock ? To deliberately mess with the time-line ? The only reasonable motivation she could have to throw that rock to begin with is her memory of someone throwing it, but she can' t have that memory if she never "will have" the idea to throw it, therefore the rock is always thrown, the time-line is unique, there' s no way around it. I don' t remember if that rock throwing plot was in the book or just in the movies, but I think it' s clearly explained in the books that the only reason Harry could cast such a powerful patronus to save himself is that he remembers doing it. If there was a time-line in which present Harry survived without future Harry' s intervention then future Harry would have no logical reason to ever intervene at all, unless he just wants to mess with the time-line for the fun of it. In a nutshell basically you can' t change anything in the past. That' s why you can' t resurrect the dead (if you could intervene to save someone then he wouldn' t have died in the first place, if you try to use a time-turner to save someone' s life anyway then you will undoubtedly fail to do so, your future self would have failed "before" your present self even has the idea to get back in time) Following that same reasoning I hypothesized that the reason Dumbledore told Hermione to use the time-turner to save Sirius and err ... Buckbeack was it ? ... Is that he noticed a pair of Hermiones and Harrys a while before that (one Harry lying in a bed while another Harry was saving Sirius for example, or something fishy along those lines). He already knew that Sirius and Buckbeack were saved by means of a time-travel (they were never not saved), and he understood that he was the one supposed to tell present Hermione to use a time-turner later on.
No, the Andriasang source news says : Given that this game (the one mentioned in the page you linked, which is apparently an A-RPG focused on airship battles) uses the Unity Engine, it's presumably unrelated to the Square Enix action RPG that was announced last week for the Unreal Engine (the one this thread is about).
Forget the brain, it' s all in the tongue.
