EC2151

Derrit, I know you live to reply to my posts, but I didn't even say the game was bad. Nor did I even deny Levine's ability to spin a good yarn (I don't think he worked on Bioshock 2, and I thought that story was dumb). But, uh, maybe you like knee-jerk responding to everything I write, to show that you indeed are 'too cool for school.' Personally I love the undue praise your attention brings to me (by making me look smarter), so keep it up! It's just so many reviews, browsing the metacritic page, told me how this game would 'change my life' or 'provoke me in ways I never knew a game could' or what-have-you... Especially funny when said reviews don't even tell me about the game itself, or how it's played. It's a comment more on game journalism than anything else. When you see all those people saying the same exact thing, doesn't that get you slightly suspicious? Isn't looking at the critical reception to the game worthy of a post or two or discussion? When a game gets a bunch of perfect scores, surely it must be so, no? I think the only game you can really have an 'existential crisis' with is a game like Civilization, where you realized you just spent 12 hours playing Civ 4, where you have to ask yourself "WHAT AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE????" No game plot, in my experience, have yet to provoke any sort of gut-wrenching psychological turmoil as advertised. Maybe I'm jus' cold-blooded. I just felt sort of turned off how few of these reviews mentioned anything substantial about the combat, if it's better or worse or more simplified or more complex than previous 'shock offerings. Literally one review had one sentence devoted to gameplay (I think it was like "the combat drags a bit sometimes"). The rest was amateur philosopher hour. Lol, do we really need to hear that shit when determining to buy a game or not?

So, a lot of the reviews tell me this game's story is "life-changing," my favorite one saying it might prompt within me an "existential crisis." So is that, as I assume, a whole load of fucking bullshit? Why would you want to play a game that prompts an existential crisis? Isn't life hard enough? Have game reviewers ever read a book before? More at eleven!

I'm going to claim RayForce/Galactic Attack - that game's my baby. If I finish that and it remains unclaimed, I'll try to whip up a Soukyogurentai mix, but one thing at a time!

Corpse Killer had a Sega Saturn port. Like all versions of Corpse Killer, the game is trash. I think it was directed by the guy who directed Maniac with Joe Spinell, though!

Level 99, Segata Sanshiro IS the Sega Saturn. The two are one in the same! With arcade games, I think ST-V games might possibly "count" since the Titan hardware was basically modeled on Saturn hardware (thus games like , , , and were ported straight over and are more or less direct conversions).That being said, I'd be a definite down to do a mix on something like , or (two outstanding masterpieces!). Darius Gaiden and Soukyogurentai also deserve love, though they had PS1 ports (eventually, but were never released in the U.S.).

Never has an act of staggering, wide-spread urban terrorism been set to more upbeat music.

Anyone who takes this up, I would love to be a part of. Give me an excuse to make another remix, for a console worthy of much love and adoration. I'm surprised Panzer Dragoon hasn't seen more love on this site, after all. At least Zwei's awesome tribal-electronic soundtrack.

Shirow makes another GITS, but why can't he make a new Tank Police? : / I am not a huge fan of the sort of plastic barbie-doll look the redesign gives the characters, but it might be ok.

You wanted to forget about that shitty N64 game? Ha ha ha, have all the shitty N64 game you want! Nintendo didn't get the memo that we don't care about Charles Martinet all that much when we play a Mario game. : /

The GBA port of LttP was annoying for shoving that stupid kid Link voice down our throat. People might not realize it, but it was a cleverly insidious way to try and retcon possibly the most famous 2D Link into the standard Toon Link paradigm. At least, that's how I see it now (because ask yourself, why would they put in a bunch of HIYAs into the game that didn't need it?). It was a stupid addition and makes it harder to go back to the GBA port. The SNES cartridge is more than sufficient.

It was just Wakka that made you want to bang your head against a wall? And not, in addition, every other character in the game? EDIT: excepting Auron, because he indeed is cool.

Not to mention all of Square's voice-actors have been terrible, with the exception of one or two characters in FFXII. /offtopic The port of R-Type II to the SNES (as Super R-Type) is pretty disappointing for how painfully slow the game is. They hadn't figured out how to make shooters on the system (Gradius III, Super R-Type), so what we got were games that only occasionally ran at normal speed.

People hate the Woolsey translation but I think it's pretty charming, myself. Now, aside from the downgrade in audio quality, the GBA port of Final Fantasy V is the definitive port of the game.

Oh, so you just wanted to act like a cocksucker. Isn't a moderator supposed to discourage this type of behavior? I would have never thought that video-games were depictions of real life. I thought video-games being escapism was evident all the way back in the '70s. As to the last point: the point can be made that that is actually less an issue of gender and more an issue of the fact that you are the player in control, so you are supposed to be more intelligent, stronger, etc. than everything around you. The game exists to gratify you. If it didn't, you wouldn't play it. I would love more female heroes - Mirror's Edge for a modern example - and I won't deny a skewing towards male characters, but I am wary about pinning that type of instance on sexism. Now, stuff like God of War harpy curb-stomping (with the accompanying achievement "Bros before Hos") is something that I can easily recognize as problematic. In the scenario we're discussing though, I would have to disagree.

@Tensei: The discussion is not so much semantic, because the statement "Women and men have equal rights, ergo X is sexist" is a statement I thought deserving of clarification. You can't really discuss something with someone unless you actually know what they're saying. There sure is a whole lot of harassment directed towards me though. I'm not playing a moral relativism game, though. I am quite opposite in inclination. You don't have to show me why anyone deserves 'any type of moral treatment in any circumstance.' All I was directing my inquiry towards were your comments regarding 'societal norms,' and it's clear that there is a somewhat confusing nature to these norms which you are arguing for, which was based around a vague notion of 'equality.' The problem was that you never told me what your scruples were. I think there are indeed normative sentiments/universally granted premises, especially in regards to gender equality. I think they are allowed some looser restrictions in works of fiction. I have yet to deny the existence of sexism in media, and I have yet to deny problems in adequate portrayal of genders in video-games. I have a hard time seeing old elements of standard story-telling as the entirely negative and corrosive force you have painted them out to be. The question begs to be asked though: how much disempowerment is actually occurring? Does this amount logically transfer to an argument about the nature of an entire gender? I'd say not.

@Radio: I don't know how Sarkeesian's list of examples has anything to do with my request for a clarification on MC Sigma's part, outside of your opportunity to [in]directly insult me. what do you think makes it possible for horrible, inconceivable violence to occur against women every day? I don't think it's video-games. sexual violence or discrimination, implicitly support or enable these acts by performing, witnessing, and accepting acts which are not so overt, yet are undeniably cut from the same cloth I point to my question above - is rescuing women naturally degrading? Is rescuing naturally degrading in and of itself? Please answer this for this statement to make more sense to me.

There's no need to get emotional in an academic discussion. All I'm doing is asking questions. I'd rather you answer them, personally. Doesn't the concept of 'degrading women' implicitly rely on a definition of rights that preclude against degradation? What are these rights? By using the term 'innate morality' are you implying that it's naturally degrading (and wrong) to rescue a woman? If so, is it naturally degrading to rescue a man? Is rescuing itself degrading? I'm confused as to what your argument is.

You still use the word "right" but you haven't told me what you think it means. I don't see how we can have a discussion on terms without definitions. The passive-aggressive use of 'friend' was a nice touch though. No need to be cranky.

No, I just wanted to hear your definition of rights, and how this applies to fictional examples. Stop assuming my lack of empathy, because someone might construe that (ie you) as being myopic.

I think my point is pretty clear. MC Final Sigma writes "Women and men have equal rights. Ergo, damsels-in-distress are sexist and toxic and should be shamed out of cultural use" I ask "In what way do rights function like that? How does the presumed right of equality (I say presumed because MC leaves it vague and ill-defined) have any bearing on individual fictional examples (in my specific circumstance, fairy-tale settings)?" Or are we just going to let MC talk out his or her ass for another couple of pages and argue with us while we aren't even one-hundred-percent sure what MC is actually arguing, outside a vague reprimand against princess-rescuing? I know we all like typing, but come on.

Where in your definition of "rights" is the clause "women must always be portrayed as equal to men in fiction and vice versa"? That is what we're talking about, right? Enumerate for me these applicable rights completely, please. Plus points if you tell me where said rights come from.

How is it voluntary when you are clearly implying that it should be the societal norm, with clear pressure put on individuals? And please, don't bring up racism, because a) you don't understand it, and we aren't talking about it.

'Irresponsible'? Really? Better burn all our copies of Grimm, folks. The only permissible cultural inculcation material will be Shrek 3.

I would just file a counter-claim around the fair-use principle, but other people should speak up and give advice.

I was actually pretty appalled when Sigourney Weaver (a strong independent woman in her own right) had to be rescued by Bill Murray, a man, in Ghostbusters. They really made her incapable of defending herself against Gozer. But wait, is it ok that she was possessed by Gozer, who is herself a strong competent female (evil) entity? Or is that even worse because Bill Murray destroys Gozer? But Gozer turns into the StayPuft Marshmallow Man. But marshmallows are not strong and independent! I am very confused. Am I supposed to hate Ghostbusters for the patriarchy it shoves down my throat (why aren't there any Ghostbustrixes?) or admire it for the fact that the villain is a strong, motivated female? Help me!