Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'serious discussion'.
Found 4 results
Warning: This is a big post, this is something that's been in my head for a really long time and I've never completely fleshed (or typed) it out until now. So if you want to give an informed opinion you're gonna have to do a lot of reading. Why not give this a listen? I wrote a lot of this while listening, helps the time fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj21RsMTZXw&t So... currently despite the constant flow of new modes that come in, the game modes are mostly fluff and grindfests with a few exceptions (Hall of Forms, etc) with the closest thing to an "endgame" mode being AR which is somewhat cancerous as well as Abyssal maps which only come around once a month. Relay Defense I feel was an attempt at an endgame mode but it was poorly implemented. I feel like the game needs something more, so here's my pitch. This will be a brand new mode and true endgame mode for the veterans and to a lesser extent the midgame players. Introducting: Fire Emblem Heroes: Campaign Mode Now, if you've read this much you're clearly willing to listen to me run my mouth, so how about a table of contents. 0.Format 1. Story 2. Difficulty 3. Permadeath 4. Heroes 5. Rewards 6. Drawbacks 7. Conclusion 0. FORMAT 1. STORY: 2. DIFFICULTY 3. PERMADEATH 4. HEROES 5. REWARDS 6. DRAWBACKS 7. Conclusion So, did you read all that? What do you think? How would this work. This is usually when I tag a crapton of people but that can wait. I want to see if this goes anywhere first. If you got to this post you did a lot of reading and can give your opinion on what you think a mode like this would mean or maybe even if you have a different idea in mind for the game's "endgame" or "high level" mode. Maybe you have a different idea for blessings, hero choices, maps, worlds. Or maybe you want to pick the mode apart. Let's hear it, I'm all ears.
So I don't usually do these but this topic has been weighing on my mind lately, and I don't want to start something I just want to see some outside opinions on the subject. One day I was talking with my friend who has a child outside of wedlock, and we were discussing morals for some reason and I was told that my opinion on abstinence didn't count because I'm just a church dude. So I thought to myself "am I really just abstinent because my religion says to be?" So I thought about it and this the answer I came up with for myself. If I were wanting a child to be born into this world, I don't think it would be fair to have him/her be born into a family that is unstable, and not even committed permanently. Growing up is a race, and even risking having a child outside of marriage could make them start really behind in that race. Religions don't just make up rules just for rules (most of the time), there is a reason for every rule and guideline, we just have to see and not follow blindly and figure it out if we agree with it or not. Anyway that's my personal thought on it, but my opinion is shot down a lot, and I'm not sure what I'm missing. So tell me what you think, and if you think it's fine outside of marriage please tell me why, because maybe I'm just ignorant. Again I don't want to start any crap, I just honestly am not to informed about this, and I want to see if my reasoning is flawed or not.
What it says on the tin. If you know me, you know that I make a lot of jokes and references. Constantly, all the time. Real life of a piece of media I've heard of, I like to be comical and not take things seriously. But other people do take many more thing seriously. As a religious person, I have my own boundaries set at places relating to that. At what point does a joke or reference go from clever to controversial?
In a widely-read study, a few random middle school students were given a case assignment on Gordin, a not-irl unsuccessful archer. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Gordin" was changed to "Gaggles." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Gordin and Gaggles were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Gaggles much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why. This is all just a sexist issue.