Dequestrian

Unguided · **Joined:** Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:53 pm **Posts:** 126

Boss rush games can be fun, but I never liked the idea of an expansive world with nothing in it besides a few (albeit, large) bosses. It's like being all alone, with no one to brag to about slaying a giant thinggumus. That might be part of why he was fighting so hard to save her, he felt lonely.

bagofnuts · **Posted:** Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:11 pm

Hitaro wrote:

Last panel - Agro looks like a donkey/mule.

bagofnuts wrote:

Great job, Katie. [i]Now I want this game.No, seriously, I do.

Stop using the fucking font size modifier damnit.

Then why the heck is it there? :colbert:

PEOPLE HERE HAVE FREEDOM TO NOT LOOK AT THE TEXT. STOP SCREWING WITH IT.

Fauche · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:10 am

bagofnuts wrote:

Hitaro wrote:

Last panel - Agro looks like a donkey/mule.

bagofnuts wrote:

Great job, Katie. [i]Now I want this game.No, seriously, I do.

Stop using the fucking font size modifier damnit.

Then why the heck is it there? :colbert:

PEOPLE HERE HAVE FREEDOM TO NOT LOOK AT THE TEXT. STOP SCREWING WITH IT.

Fix'd

:awesome:

DoNotDelete · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:10 am

Rakuen wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:

I kind of have ethical problems with Shadow of the Colossus - or any game that asks me to kill 10+ unique creatures on the promise of resurrecting some bimbo.

[spoiler]I just can't support the genocide of 10+ species - and I would've seen through that "sorcerer's" lies from the start anyways. From what I've gathered the "sorcerer" promises to revive your dead bimbo if you kill 10+ monsters that are "terrorising the land" but actually the creatures are the things keeping the "sorcerer" trapped - 'cos he's actually the bad guy you see - so you just committed 10+ counts of genocide - killing ten good creatures for a "sorcerer" who was never gonna revive your bimbo anyways.[/spoiler]

So leave the animals alone - 'kay?

Obligatory "play the game first (or at least know it correctly)" defense.

Hypnotoad wrote:

As for your ethical problems with the game, I think you missed the whole point. The ethical problems are the main part of the games story line. You're supposed to have them. It sounds like you had the ending of the game spoiled for you and decided never to play it.

Yeah sorry I haven't actually played this game - somebody else gave me the lowdown on it a while ago and I was completely turned off of the whole thing.

I guess I err on the side of protecting and treasuring animal/monster life (probably something to do with being a Pokemon addict) - games that are all about mindless destruction and emotionless killing stopped being even remotely entertaining to me a long time ago.

I just hate macho "Oh look at me - I can kill a creature ten times the size of me - so I'm a real man!" bullshit really.

Echo MasterMind · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:27 am

Fauche wrote:

bagofnuts wrote:

Hitaro wrote:

Last panel - Agro looks like a donkey/mule.

bagofnuts wrote:

Great job, Katie. [i]Now I want this game.No, seriously, I do.

Stop using the fucking font size modifier damnit.

Then why the heck is it there? :colbert:

PEOPLE HERE HAVE FREEDOM TO NOT LOOK AT THE TEXT. STOP SCREWING WITH IT.

Fix'd

:awesome:

Fix'd again...

... :awesome:

Spoony · **Joined:** Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:14 am **Posts:** 9325

DoNotDelete wrote:

Rakuen wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:

I kind of have ethical problems with Shadow of the Colossus - or any game that asks me to kill 10+ unique creatures on the promise of resurrecting some bimbo.

[spoiler]I just can't support the genocide of 10+ species - and I would've seen through that "sorcerer's" lies from the start anyways. From what I've gathered the "sorcerer" promises to revive your dead bimbo if you kill 10+ monsters that are "terrorising the land" but actually the creatures are the things keeping the "sorcerer" trapped - 'cos he's actually the bad guy you see - so you just committed 10+ counts of genocide - killing ten good creatures for a "sorcerer" who was never gonna revive your bimbo anyways.[/spoiler]

So leave the animals alone - 'kay?

Obligatory "play the game first (or at least know it correctly)" defense.

Hypnotoad wrote:

As for your ethical problems with the game, I think you missed the whole point. The ethical problems are the main part of the games story line. You're supposed to have them. It sounds like you had the ending of the game spoiled for you and decided never to play it.

Yeah sorry I haven't actually played this game - somebody else gave me the lowdown on it a while ago and I was completely turned off of the whole thing.

I guess I err on the side of protecting and treasuring animal/monster life (probably something to do with being a Pokemon addict) - games that are all about mindless destruction and emotionless killing stopped being even remotely entertaining to me a long time ago.

I just hate macho "Oh look at me - I can kill a creature ten times the size of me - so I'm a real man!" bullshit really.

You're making a very inconsistent argument. First, you say the guy kills these monsters so a wizard who'll re-animate his girlfriend/wife/gaybopartner/whatever. That in itself is a motivation based on emotion, so it is neither mindless destruction nor emotionless killing. The fact that the wizard wasn't going to revive the lass has no meaning at all in the scope of the ethics of the guys decisions, and saying "OH I'M SO AWESOME I WOULD'VE SEEN THROUGH THE DEVIOUS TRICKERYLOLOLOL" is pretty myopic.

DoNotDelete · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 am

Spoony wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:

Rakuen wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:

I kind of have ethical problems with Shadow of the Colossus - or any game that asks me to kill 10+ unique creatures on the promise of resurrecting some bimbo.

[spoiler]I just can't support the genocide of 10+ species - and I would've seen through that "sorcerer's" lies from the start anyways. From what I've gathered the "sorcerer" promises to revive your dead bimbo if you kill 10+ monsters that are "terrorising the land" but actually the creatures are the things keeping the "sorcerer" trapped - 'cos he's actually the bad guy you see - so you just committed 10+ counts of genocide - killing ten good creatures for a "sorcerer" who was never gonna revive your bimbo anyways.[/spoiler]

So leave the animals alone - 'kay?

Obligatory "play the game first (or at least know it correctly)" defense.

Hypnotoad wrote:

As for your ethical problems with the game, I think you missed the whole point. The ethical problems are the main part of the games story line. You're supposed to have them. It sounds like you had the ending of the game spoiled for you and decided never to play it.

Yeah sorry I haven't actually played this game - somebody else gave me the lowdown on it a while ago and I was completely turned off of the whole thing.

I guess I err on the side of protecting and treasuring animal/monster life (probably something to do with being a Pokemon addict) - games that are all about mindless destruction and emotionless killing stopped being even remotely entertaining to me a long time ago.

I just hate macho "Oh look at me - I can kill a creature ten times the size of me - so I'm a real man!" bullshit really.

You're making a very inconsistent argument. First, you say the guy kills these monsters so a wizard who'll re-animate his girlfriend/wife/gaybopartner/whatever. That in itself is a motivation based on emotion, so it is neither mindless destruction nor emotionless killing. The fact that the wizard wasn't going to revive the lass has no meaning at all in the scope of the ethics of the guys decisions, and saying "OH I'M SO AWESOME I WOULD'VE SEEN THROUGH THE DEVIOUS TRICKERYLOLOLOL" is pretty myopic.

Right - I was referring to a wider range of games than just SotC with the "mindless destruction and emotionless killing" comment - like Duke Nukem, GTA and possibly even Halo - which I haven't played because it doesn't appeal to me for the reasons aforementioned.

What I was trying to say is - emotions are okay but you can't let yourself be ruled by them//

//in fact acting on emotions alone and not thinking the situation through (i.e. just what are this "sorcerer's" motivations for helping me anyway?) is myopic.

But I'll admit I haven't played the game so I wasn't in a position to comment on it - sometimes my hatred of human beings' need to assert themselves over and/or conquer everything else gets the better of me - see I'm a living example of how someone's emotions can get them into trouble as they so apparently have done here - oh by all means continue flaming me if you wish - but I'm not going to apologise for that again.

And I am awesome - more than you may ever know.

Indignant · **Joined:** Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:22 pm **Posts:** 51

penguinsauce wrote:

The Big Cheese wrote:

penguinsauce wrote:

humans rub their hands together to make a delicious sandwhich appear? WTF!

And now, a brilliant idea has been born. RPGs need a summon tasty snack spell.

I'll have to steal that idea somehow

Ever play WoW? Specifically, a Mage? Two of their very early spells are "Summon Food" and "Summon Water." As you get stronger, you can end up summoning more impressive food and drinks.

DarkSurfer · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:59 pm

Yes, but can you, the player, eat it?

Odds · **Posted:** Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:50 pm

Indignant wrote:

Ever play WoW? Specifically, a Mage? Two of their very early spells are "Summon Food" and "Summon Water."

Story of my liiiiiiiife.

Frijol · **Joined:** Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:54 am **Posts:** 1

In the last panel the horses chest looks like a cameltoe, just saying.

Miss Starseed · **Posted:** Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:49 am

I'm not sure why, but I didn't really like this one. I just felt it was a lot of panels of... nothing to get to a really weak punchline. The concept of a horse suddenly appearing beside you despite the obstacle is amusing though. I think it only amuses me in the written form though.

DoNotDelete wrote:

Yeah if you weren't worried about being "topical" why didn't you do the same idea but for Epona and Link?

Because Epona will not show up if you cross water, for example, Zora's River. She refuses to go across the water, and if you play her song, she'll still stop at the river on the other side because Nintendo hates us and doesn't support our lazy tendencies.

The Big Cheese wrote:

Yes, but can you, the player, eat it?

First we need magic in real life, dude. Computers are quite epic but I doubt there'll ever be a "press here for snack" button on your keyboard, in a game or otherwise.

Snagathor · **Posted:** Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:56 am

You never know, a press here for snack button coming along with a game would sell. I'd buy one. :awesome:

Fluffdick · **Posted:** Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:44 pm

bagofnuts wrote:

Hitaro wrote:

Last panel - Agro looks like a donkey/mule.

bagofnuts wrote:

[size=0]Great job, Katie. [i]Now I want this game.No, seriously, I do.[/size]

Stop using the fucking font size modifier damnit.

Then why the heck is it there? :colbert:

PEOPLE HERE HAVE FREEDOM TO NOT LOOK AT THE TEXT. STOP SCREWING WITH IT.

Fixed

:awesome:

DarkSurfer · **Posted:** Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:10 pm

Miss StarSeed wrote:

First we need magic in real life, dude. Computers are quite epic but I doubt there'll ever be a "press here for snack" button on your keyboard, in a game or otherwise.

Everuqest II, I believe, allows you to order Dominos Pizza in-game. so actually, yes, there is a "press here for snack".

AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Dequestrian

Who is online