calvinsora's forum posts

#1 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

I don't really see the point in such a broad comparison of one company, but I certainly think Nintendo has the platformer genre dominated many times over; both 3D and 2D. SSB Melee is my favorite fighter of all time, so there's that, and I'd also posit that, whatever genre Metroid Prime is a part of, Metroid Prime destroys. Whether that's action-adventure or first-person adventure, makes little difference. Finally, you forgot racer entirely - even though there are games I like more in that genre than Mario Kart, it's still a big part of the big N's portfolio.

StatusShuffle

I mentioned F-zero.

Ah sorry, it slipped out of view :P

#2 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

I don't really see the point in such a broad comparison of one company, but I certainly think Nintendo has the platformer genre dominated many times over; both 3D and 2D. SSB Melee is my favorite fighter of all time, so there's that, and I'd also posit that, whatever genre Metroid Prime is a part of, Metroid Prime destroys. Whether that's action-adventure or first-person adventure, makes little difference. Finally, you forgot racer entirely - even though there are games I like more in that genre than Mario Kart, it's still a big part of the big N's portfolio.

#3 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

Depends on where you look, the majority of people I've talked to about the series over the entire internet, and in terms of IMDB aggregates and such, love the series. I'd say it's a rather safe majority, in fact, so I don't really see what the question entails. I at least love the series, BBS renewed my faith in it after 358/2 Days almost crushed it.

#4 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

You do realize this is a fictional world? In this world, those gods are actually present and very much real, it makes sense to pray to the idols since it conforms to the traditions of Dark Souls' reality. You doing that in-game says nothing about who you are as a person, implying otherwise is ridiculous. I'm not saying you're doing that, but even though I'm religious, I find your complaints rather ludicrous.

#5 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

You bring up an intelligent argument, but I find that you failed to point at direct reasoning as to how linear storytelling, isometric view and lack of innovation is something that brings it down. Innovation is quickly becoming the most overused and devaluated term in video-game reviewing, and considering it's not a qualitative statement, that surprises me. Blizzard has rarely ever innovated, that didn't stop them from gaining fans across the globe. I'd rather want a polished game than a new but poorly executed one. I'm playing Diablo II for the first time now and I'd say it's worth every hour spent even amongst the many other new games I have on stand-by. That game is hardly innovative, it had dated graphics back in its day and the storytelling is hardly free-form. To be honest, though I've never played Diablo III, I've yet to hear valid reasons why people don't like this game when they liked Diablo II and I outside of the DRM policy.

#6 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

I'm excited about it, mainly because I couldn't stand Toby Maguire as Spidey. Just not at all. I hope Andrew does better.

#7 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Traditions are meant to change if they do not conform to what is right within the rudiments of equality and civility. Marriage exists, as an institution, both inside and outside of religion, and it bears with it certain stigmas and rights that civil union doesn't have. Outside of the fact that actual "gender rules" are nonsensical in definition, you don't bring up that the same person that may confuse a friendly relationship with a gay one could then go on to misunderstand a relationship between a male friend and a female friend. Or are the only relationships we have with the opposite sex sexual in nature? Whether you want to go into debates about what evidence does and doesn't support the innate nature of homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that many nations (not mine, thankfully) are clinging to an archaic ideal of what love "should be", not what it has the potential to be. And while people are actively defending what they consider to be the "right way" while denying themselves of anything else that they feel uncomfortable with, we cannot hope to ever develop any other way of thought but "families are made for propagation, anything else is unnatural". That's not to me an ideal society.

fidosim

You argue that "traditionalists" are wrong in defending what "they consider to be the 'right way'", yet you insist that marriage practices conform to "what is right within the rudiments of equality and civility", in the interest of creating what is, according to you, "an ideal society." Why should we trust your conception of what makes an "ideal society" over centuries of tradition within most of the developed societies of the world? Tradition shouldn't be blindly used to perpetuate itself, which is what folks think the anti-gay marriage crowd is doing, but the institutions we have developed and survived for a reason.

Sorry for my late response. I do not wish for everything to conform to what I deem to be an ideal society. I am fully aware of my own perceptive limitations and personal biases. However, stopping gay people from having the legal rights that others have in relation to what is essentially a subjective decision based on love and togetherness is completely anti-egalitarian. Equality isn't something I'm dictating here and now. The institution of marriage has changed wildly already through the centuries (it's rightfully become a symbol of love and affection in most countries), and it's moved more and more into becoming a non-religious one at that (though it doesn't at all have to be removed from that either). Case in point, you don't have to be part of any religion to be legally married. So when religous dogma isn't acting as a barrier towards accessability, what's the rationale for why gay people can't marry? The simple answer is that people fail to acknowledge what they can't understand from experience. Improvement of, well, everything doesn't only come from self-preservation of traditions, but evolution of those traditions to a form that is consistent with what we'd want ourselves. My country has allowed gay marriage for quite some time now and you know what? People are really happy about it. We don't have a sudden rise in the number of homosexuals, society hasn't collapsed, our prime minster is herself gay and in a happy relationship. There are no downsides, marriage hasn't lost its value, families are still just families. The point of the matter is that if people love each other, why in the world can they not enjoy the benefits that other couples can, regardless of actual dedication and affection? How is that equality in the working?

#8 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

Traditions are meant to change if they do not conform to what is right within the rudiments of equality and civility. Marriage exists, as an institution, both inside and outside of religion, and it bears with it certain stigmas and rights that civil union doesn't have. Outside of the fact that actual "gender rules" are nonsensical in definition, you don't bring up that the same person that may confuse a friendly relationship with a gay one could then go on to misunderstand a relationship between a male friend and a female friend. Or are the only relationships we have with the opposite sex sexual in nature? Whether you want to go into debates about what evidence does and doesn't support the innate nature of homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that many nations (not mine, thankfully) are clinging to an archaic ideal of what love "should be", not what it has the potential to be. And while people are actively defending what they consider to be the "right way" while denying themselves of anything else that they feel uncomfortable with, we cannot hope to ever develop any other way of thought but "families are made for propagation, anything else is unnatural". That's not to me an ideal society.

#9 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -

Marriage is a way for a couple to legally combine their finances and estates because they'd rather deal with them together than separately. Marriage has been a legal institution for a long time and it's there for a very valid, very definite reason. Hence why you can get married outside of churches. Since it's a legal act, the government has to see to some sort of control.

#10 Posted by calvinsora (7043 posts) -
I'm far from active but I'm still here.