emblempride

Freewill and La Villa Strangiato!

Nothing compared to Awakening and Fates though, and you can't even see her cleavage in her portrait, or in-game really. Limstella wouldn't have been so androgynous today. EDIT: Both, but can't really fault them for a profit motive. The games are still good though, can't really imagine a bad FE game.

As someone who played Melee when it came out and mained Roy, got FE7 Winter 2003 right after it came out because I was sure Roy was on the cover and spent half the game going, "When's this motherfucker gonna show", never meeting another person who had heard of the series when now even casual friends of mine have played Awakening, times sure have changed. I still remember thinking that Sacred Stones had come out a while before it did and having the cashier at Gamestop tell me that it hadn't but that he could get me a game that was "just like Fire Emblem". He then brought over the gba port of Breath of Fire, the cunt. The only thing that sucks is that you'd have never gotten a Camilla or Charlotte or cockthroat peach-cleavage DLC Micaiah (seriously, how could any artist have been satisfied with that shit?) in literally any of the 12 games pre-Awakening, even in a series where people argued adamantly and passionately proclaiming actual physical ownership over fuckin Priscilla, and Fates has seemed to show a new disappointing precedent regarding character design, but its a relatively small price to pay to keep the series alive.

Lol, c'mon. Awakening (a game where your son can marry his aunt) got one (two for EU) incredibly minor DLC-related thing(s) censored. They didn't even care enough to censor Cordelia's almost-tits when they did Tharja. They changed "married" to "companions". What little they possibly could censor is of little consequence anyways...

With Nolan, honestly, yeah if you focused on just those characters. Plenty of people have done it, I don't want to assume but it seems that it's what most do unless they like another character and not one of the good 'uns. Giving Aran, Leo, and Eddie enough experience to promote, even just one of them, means taking experience away from that handful of much better units, which honestly makes 3-6 a lot harder than using a focused group ever could. Others have shown better than I could as to why it's too big a hassle to promote more than a select few of your unpromoted DB beyond EM, so why give Aran, Leo, and Eddie priority or try to make them balanced to the detriment of your other, much much better characters? Plus the BK can handle a whole part of the map on his own. Why would you want to though? I know it's a theoretical, but it's one that is never going to happen. Why put two of your best units on a team that is already kicking the holy shit out of the DB? Haar and Titania make Jill redundant to have on the same team and Mia usually ends up better than or on par with Zihark, no reason to have both of them on one team in part 3.

Oh yeah, I'm aware of why we're still involved. It just seems that the general public, rightfully so of course in theory, is more in support of continued involvement because of the moral obligation to help rather than the economic factors that are truly directing the west. It's just a tragedy that we rely so much on one resource that, as you said, it becomes a "good reason" to go to fucking war over, similar situation have occurred all throughout history and that you'd think we'd learn from them eventually. But I guess it's naive in this day and age to think that that would change :/

Stood up a funeral

Definite "Doh!" moment on my part lol

Oh? Why is that?

@NekoKnight: I think EJ hit the nail on the head with his posts. Incest, 99.9% of the time, has someone in a traditional position of power in control. We're never gonna see some outlandish situation where we have to preserve the race, or something like the end of Bored to Death. It's always a travesty, stockholm syndrome up and down, etc. I've more personal experience with incest than one would care to admit, it's such a fucking awful thing. Outside of the idea of taboo, it's incomparable to a homosexual relationship. It's more than just "icky". To reiterate, I don't think that disliking the physical acts themselves is equivalent to homophobia, but disliking homosexuality in general, which is always going to be an irrational belief when framed in any way, is basically homophobia. Yeah, this is just with regards to a video game, one that isn't exactly going to incite a social revolution. But disliking something as silly as face-petting is much, much different than disliking something of a character that many players could relate to that isn't antagonistic and most likely wouldn't be overbearing. I don't think you in particular are homophobic, and I haven't read the thread nor care to see if anyone in the thread has been (I was originally just responding to the bit about disliking homosexuality being equivalent to homophobia and I don't even know what the original post that sparked that said) but it is silly to be "not in support of" (would/wouldn't mind is definitely more fitting) LGBT supports. The fact that this thread is an either or topic is silly to me. There is no reason for anyone to mind it unless it feels tacked on for the sake of it and inorganic. Like face-petting, for example, which is definitely and objectively shit, so sayeth the almighty me.

Don't have the time to read the thread, so just tossing my two cents in here. Could someone a bit more informed tell me if anything, anything at all positive has come out of the west's world policing and intervention good intentions aside? Or our buttbuddying with Israel? I think it's time for the west to just get to fuck for once. I mean, Buddhists have fucked over Muslims and Hindus, there's been genocides all over Africa we could give a fuck about, everyone seemed to magically forget about Boko Haram until they backed IS - it seems that there are plenty of atrocities happening all over and IS just happens to be at the center of the propaganda game right now. I am fairly certain that quite a few of my fellow Americans believe IS, the Taliban, and al-Qaida to be one big supergroup. I'm not trying to downplaying their power or atrocities, but what can we do that won't just mess things up, kill more people, and further the resentment towards the west? The last century hasn't exactly provided great evidence for intervention in the Middle East. We treated Saddam like goddamn Freddie Krueger, and, well, doesn't seem like we fixed anything there. Even if IS were eliminated, there's another still in the balance of power that works as a great opportunity for some other group to jump in and do the exact same shit and it's only made easier by the chaos more intervention would create. And this is all without saying how shady the UN is in general. A Swedish man was put on trial in London for alleged terrorism in Syria, but the prosecution said screw it to save face for the Brits because it was abundantly clear that they had supported the same rebel groups as the fucking guy they put on trial for terrorism. This rebel group is described as Syria's al-Qaida, fyi. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo The US and others definitely ain't better, I'm sure. It's all heartbreaking and frustrating, but moral impulses work on the level of the individual, not when global power politics come into play. Save a 2nd Holocaust, God forbid, it's unrealistic to think that we'll ever provide the focused, unified front we'd all like to hope for. It's time to leave it alone, no?

90% of the effects in the movie are practical and the stunt team includes Cirque du Soleil performers and Olympians. Man I wish I could see it before it leaves the big screen

Them Stars Wars killed all of them Jedis. Urgh, never been a fan of YA fiction but The Gift had ethnic cleansing. I think replicating real-world evil or attempting to match it is a difficult thing to do, which is weird when we've had the fucking Holocaust. It's like you're either trying to ohard or the effort just isn't there. Sometimes, for some strange reason, you'll get a story where a 15-year-old girl is the chosen one or whatever and single-handedly saves everything. It always goes to shit in some way. I think dystopias are more successful when they're just plain unnerving, see The Trial. That's some terrifying stuff right there. 1984 is really the only example I can think of where extreme evil really worked as a societal dictator, surreal, dreamy stuff like Blade Runner and "entire world is in ruins" dystopias don't really need a prevailing evil to create a sense of dread. Actually, now that I think about it, Atlas Shrugged is pretty evil in just about every way you can imagine.

You should have whipped it out and handed it to him to even things out a bit. But you know, in a polite way.

Pretty much. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting grossed out by public displays of affection no matter who you are or who you're kissing, and I understand that sexual orientation affects your ability and willingness to watch that kind of thing, say, in a movie. But to then go and say, "I dislike homosexuality," is a big fucking leap. I think that's my issue. It's not that they dislike homosexuality, but wording it as such has its consequences and if that is the way you view it, I'm very sure that it can lead to that person truly meaning that it is homosexuality that they do not like. Nah, I think it's relevant to the topic. No nays from me. It's just that, to have that feeling and then say that it is homosexuality in particular, and not that you just aren't a fan of watching two guys kiss because it's not your sexual orientation, is alarming to me. I'm not even sure I would call homosexuality a trait in the sense that most would as something related to the personality as much as people believe it to be, because you can have a guy like John Waters and then you can have a guy like Todd Glass. Both gay, nothing at all like each other aside from that. A lot of gays I could and would describe without the word gay being used at all, I've never found it to be the best descriptor. I'm not saying it's absolutely not a trait, I'm not a linguist and I'm not gay, but I hope I've conveyed my point well. Anyways, a person who doesn't like seeing two gays kiss isn't a homophobe, it's just a straight person who's not into it. Much like a person having preferences in the race of a lover. It's not racism, it's just preference. That's not disliking homosexuality, if that's what you're saying. But as for a person who truly dislikes homosexuality, even if they don't go out and set fire to a bunch of gays day to day it's a hateful, judging stance that is fundamentally negative and based on absolutely nothing or someone's unresolved issues. There is no logical reason to feel that way and it puts certain people below others. Saying "But I respect you" means nothing. You lose that respect by judging that quality undeservedly and it does make that person a homophobe. Well, I don't think anybody enjoys a discussion where somebody states their opinion and then bows out when it is questioned. Why state a position if you aren't willing to support it? That's actually the opposite of discussion. Not that anybody has done that. And a person is inherently being a dick about it if you say "I don't like this part of you and others that you can't change that and doesn't affect me at all". With gay relatives and friends, yeah, that's not okay to me. Even if I had never met a gay person in my life, that's still not okay. And I can't imagine how ridiculed and denounced a gay person must feel when having to explain themselves to someone who just plain "doesn't like homosexuality". The empathy is on the wrong side here, guys.