Forum Posts Following Followers
5549 84 42

LOXO7 Blog

Batman and Rachel

by on

Rachel Dawes is a (explicit). She is the most unusual messed up character in the Batman universe. She is a joker to Bruce Wayne. The biggest tease ever.

Rachel: *Slap* *Slap* How dare you show me that gun! Your father would be ashamed. (But I'm not! He's so hot when he has a simple mind.)

Rachel: Swimming? I would be yours if you started using your financial power and help me fix this city. Happy birthday.

Bruce: I'm Batman.

Rachel: Oh shoot, I only liked you when you were a spoiled rich kid that cared about no one but himself and liked to swim.

And her final words in both movies are just a long and drawn out no. Alfred is the glue to the characters. He knows what Batman is. And so does all of the other main characters, Joker, Harvey, Gordon, Fox, and herself, until when the story needs her not to. This major 180 degree turn also happened in one of my favorite movies, Pirate of the Caribbean: At World's End, when Will Turner just happened to forget how to kill Davey Jones. The reason why he carried his father's knife around with him in the second and third movie was all for nothing. So the movie's plot ruins the character yet again.

Weather in games doesn't exist

by on

Weather never has any affect on open world games. I wish it did. I've been recently playing Oblivion IV again. In the middle of power leveling it seemed to rain for days. I was wondering where the floods were. Wouldn't that be awesome if the game time actually has an effect on the landscape of the game world?

(Weather in games now: 24 hour clock, Thunderstorms, Wind, Rain, Clouds, Snow)

I'm just thinking about Oblivion IV in that list. There probably are others, like heat, but even then still has visual effects and has the same actual effect as snow, which is nothing. In this list there is enough for the landscape to change.

24 hour clock means the days past and the seasons could change along with everything that comes with each day and night, like rain and wind eroding the landscape.

Thunderstorms could cause trees from being up rooted from high winds, trees splitting from lightning, flash floods, and destructive hail.

Wind from tornadoes or just from high wind places like the coast lines.

Rain could cause floods to happen, leave behind puddles, and make everything look wet after rain. 24 hour clock says it takes time to dry if it's daytime.

Clouds should block out the sun and leave shadows on the ground and have different values of fog.

Snow will show accumulation, show footstep definition (sand, dirt, grass), land on everything including trees and the player as with the rain drips from everything, and have the melting point were icicles form.

Also with great weather effects the people of the world need to have some comments on it, even have them have moods relating to it. If they're storming a castle and its raining they should be in a crappier mood normally.

I realize with a complex weather system like this means that whatever game that has it, is what this game is about. Like the erosion caused by the weather would be extreme because all the game is about weather. What I'm talking about is subtle erosion, or a lot from landslides if it's going to rain days and days. Games today are lacking the weather affects in their worlds. They give an illusion of weather. Most games have a game day counter. So why not have the leaves change color, fall off at the appropriate times, then regrow, and repeat? At least they could do that.

Vegetarian World

by on

I don't understand why people are vegetarians. How would it benefit the world if everyone became a vegetarian? In the United States we may get a license to hunt and fish. We don't have to it's a choice. When everyone became vegetarian hunting and fishing is now against the law. Fish wouldn't be as big of a problem because we live in two different worlds. But the animals would become a nuisance. Well maybe not because I don't know how a vegetarian think. They have a whole different mentality to animals. Perhaps everyone would love nearly getting into accidents when they have to dodge the vast number of animals now crossing the roads. But accidents do happen. Murderers.

All crops will be for people. Six billion people in the world. 71 percent of the world is water. I think we will lose some people. Maybe even get into war for land. Haha. Dying for dirt, that's so silly. Why would anyone do that? I'm glad my ancestors never were that childish. I don't think there is enough space for agriculture for this many lives. We might have to bulldoze some mountains and fill the oceans with the dirt. No we couldn't do that. We'd ruin the shallow living fish. We couldn't make space by deforestation. War it is.

However long it takes to massively reduce the world's population safely or without contaminating it too much later we live peacefully with nature. But I know how picky people are now. I can only imagine the chemicals we place on our crops for expanded growth or insect repellant. Might turn the water a different color, ah well fish are aliens anyway. But we need to maintain the world population capacity. Yup the world would definitely be different if everyone was a vegetarian.

The Incredibles

by on

I heard that the f word was barley said in the Pixar movie The Incredibles. So I googled "who says the f word in the incredibles?" And found this glorious site. I started reading the article before looking at the title of the web site. It was more fun this way, but I found it extremely critical. Nit picking to the max. Using words like, stereotypes, racism, and sexism. In a Pixar movie? Okay, but I'm surethe movie is doing thatfor all fun and games... So I thought to myself this must be a woman writer. Does this make me sexist? I didn't see who actually wrote it. All it says was Ms Razorblade. And then thought, "Oh haha. F must mean female." And then looked at were I was. Yikes.

This is so wrong. What she was saying. Movies (art) tell messages. This movie is about stereotypes yes, but it's supposed to be comical. But art is in the eye of the beholder. She was very creative on what she "viewed":roll: to interpret.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2005/01/the_incredibles

9/11: Science and Conspiracy

by on

A few weeks ago I watched this episode on National Geographic channel. I was interested on what they would cover about that date. The segment was on two hours so I thought they would cover something controversial. The episode was exactly what it was in the title, science and conspiracy. They had the two sides and both of their thoughts. First they had the conspiracy theorists state their thoughts then they had the non-theorists disprove them with experiments. It went like this throughout the episode. Then they concluded with some "passionate" conspiracy theorists and had an expert saying, "There will always be conspiracy theorists."

I can see why this was allowed to be aired on national television. It got nowhere. Nothing was proved or learned. They covered the theories that could be experimented on. And those experiments were poorly done. I watch a lot of Mythbusters, because they make it fun and their really smart. These experiments on this episode weren't thought out very well. In one they were proving that airline fuel was enough energy to weaken steal. So they made a pit and filled it with gallons of fuel and lit it on fire. It took less than five minutes to collapse. Why, because they contained the fire to one area. It wasn't spread out. It was inches deep in a pit.

They had one experiment with controlled demolition on an eight-story building. Why did they even attempt this one? Eight does not equal to 110 stories. They said if the World Trade Center were brought down with explosives there would be some evidence. Well let me tell you something. Was there any evidence that the World Trade Center had any office desks in the building? Was there any evidence that there were computers in the building? No. Because everything that fell down was turned to dust.

What I really hoped they would cover the spoofs out of the buildings when they started to collapse. Shown here.

WTC collapse

But they didn't. The red circle is the spoof and the blue line is the intact building above it. There are other better pictures, but I can't find them.

The structure was weakened underneath the hit zone, because if it wasn't then it would be still standing. The weight of the building above the hit zone was not enough weight to collapse the buildings. Even if it did then that part would fall off in half because of lack of support structure at the hit zone. It wouldn't cause the bottom of the building to collapse on itself. There was nothing structurally wrong with that part (or so they say). Okay so let say 100% of four floors were gone. Then that's like 40 feet of free fall. Is that enough to collapse the rest of the building?

They concluded with an expert on people's behaviors. There will always be conspiracy theorists was the topic. Wow really? Then they had some "passionate" guy talking about his theories. I think they tried to find the craziest guy they could. To somehow make all theorists look and think like him. It was two hours of wasted time. I was really naive to think that they would say something worth hearing.

http://www.emeraldecocity.com/zero%20defects.html

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2