Kanami

For the first one, neck looks horribly shaded, and the fancy trimming on the clothes looks more grotesque then pretty.

Phoenix takes over and Kiryn because mom... Should have seen this coming. Is Cynthia the wicked aunt?

What would happen to you that you don't like so much? Getting rather tired of these "You wouldn't understand" comments, it's not up to you to determine what anyone including myself can understand, and what we can't. We'll determine for ourselves whether we understand your point or not. Telling us that it's pointless to discuss is rather rude. And certainly not something someone with an "open-mind" should be doing. Kanami is pleased to inform you that she is not a figment of your imagination but a malignant tumour. You also have an appointment with death at 10 today. So God is essentially just a handy thing to be used when things get hard? A tool created for the convinience of mankind? Wow, we do agree on things :P The thing is, God isn't there at all. -If I oversleep, but still manage to catch the bus because the bus was running late, that's not God slowing down the bus, but "human" factors which have slowed things down. -The reason I have something to eat today is because I worked my ass off yesterday working. Not because God is randomly sending down food for me. -If I graduate College/Uni and get a good paying job, it's due to my effort and knowledge. My effort comes from me, not from God. My knowledge comes from my parents, teachers, friends and myself, not God. So when does God act fatherly? A voyeur/stalker can watch over you if that's all God does. Good going daddy, you've done absolutely nothing for me you over pretentious prick.

I disagree, you were a prick back then, and you're a prick right now. So you're right in the sense that "nothing has changed" :P .... Nevermind I didn't know you then, and I don't know you very well now XD@eclipse Either way, you still haven't explained how "faith" connects to being a better/nicer/stronger/proper person. I mean, I know a Christian who shoplifts, with your ideology, I should then assume all Christians are bad and shoplift? That's stupid right? Well unfortunately it's no different to your connection of Christian = nicer person. I've heard people say they can't live without their faith, but you'd be surprised what people can live without, I remember saying I can't live through summer without an airconditioner, and that was seven summers ago. I'm atill here today? You've mentioned you don't have faith in mankind. And in all honesty it sounds like a prelude to "humans suck, we're all worthless maggots, woe be to all of us." But assuming God exists, I don't see how having faith in beardie changes anything. On the contrary I think things would get worse if people looked to God to solve problems, cause quite frankly God doesn't like intervening and solving our problems for us. Right?

I honestly think they'd be better people :/ We can all agree that being Christian doesn't equate to a bad or dumb person. And if their fanatical devotion to the unknown was peeled away, that'd make them a better person. I don't remember you saying that either, however I said "correct" which in relation I firmly believe the concept of the Christian God to be "incorrect." It's been asked above in a similar fashion, but what has "religion" and the world being "a little nicer" have to do with with eachother? You're joking right? You can't hit "ignorance" <_< That's like trying to get rid of human idiocy. You can educate people as much as you like, it'll still always be there. I agree with the human sheep, however I do not believe that the role of the shepherd should be played but a fictitious character. Certainly not one which can't be held accountable for his teachings. It's this sort of attitude which fuels racism. By separating certain ethnicities and then raising them, you create internal attitudes (them and us). And people in the neighbor hood get a strong impression of the ethnicity/religion (Negative or positive). In complete honesty, I don't have a problem with "black" people, but I wouldn't welcome a "blacks only" school in my neighborhood. Furthermore, what's the point in restricting enrollment like that?

I find the former to be inaccurate. Me, personally. After I left my (then) local church I picked up the violin and video games. I'm not sure if those are "logical" alternatives, but the term isn't being interpreted correctly from what I can tell. It's not being "illogical" that's the problem. It's defining "illogical" as okay. "It's illogical, who gives a fuck?" seems to be the response I mainly receive. And frankly, that is rather stupid. You're entitled to your own beliefs and practices, sure. But promoting it as "right" when you can't back it up with anything seems rather weak. As for too powerful, I agree, everything turns bad at extreme levels. Even happiness But with "ideals > people" I have to agree that the people are the ones making the ideals. Even if it's "divine" words from God, it went through the translation process of man. In regards to "racism" being an example, I found that interesting, since religion as a whole shares similar traits. For example, the whole idea of non-believers going to hell, elevates the believers above the others. There's even cases today when non-belivers are excluded (Local Private High School only accepts Christians/Catholic applicants for teachings, right down to the gardener)

I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and if it doesn't, the first thing I turn to would be a logical (scientific) reasoning. (World stopped spinning, Sun went boom, A fleet of alien spacecrafts are blotting out the sun etcetc) Under no circumstance would I turn to religion for the answer, as Meteor has said, religion isn't logical. And blaming all unexplainable events on divine intervention seems ridiculous. I mean if I went back 2000 years with a walkie-talkie I'd be a miracle worker, or some evil wizard. Technology at the time would have seen it as magic, but we know now that it's not magic at all. Where did God come from? He just exists Is the stupidest answer I've ever heard. I reinstate that there's a difference between seeking an answer (science) and dismissing the issue as unexplainable (religion). The latter being a very immature way of handling things, take my younger sister today Why didn't you go to school? Didn't feel like it.

A complete oversimplification, there's a difference between attributing an idea with tests and making an educated guess. And being a blind follower. God exists because god exists is not intelligent in any sense. While the logic behind carbon cycling, can be explained by modern science. Sure it could be wrong, but it could equally be right. In the case of God, you might argue it's equally likely to be right/wrong, but that's like saying Frodo Baggins could/couldn't have existed.

Who says I care whether or not it's logical? If that's what makes you tick, that's fine. I don't always work like that. Uhh, did you read Meteor's post? Your reply doesn't really contest his statement.Choosing not to argue it, and not being able to argue it isn't about how you "work" but what evidence or theories you can provide to support your claims, Meteor says due to it being "faith" which can't be supported with logic.

Still pretty far from perfect though

Thanks, it's appreciated since this single vote system doesn't reflect positioning/ranking very well. I've always preferred a multi-choice voting style where people indicate their first~third preference and point be allocated depending on the positioning. (3points for 1st, 1 point for 3rd) Then have it tallied up. But it's apparently too much work for those running polls. An alternative idea would be to run a second splicing competition for the less "epic" spriters only (while still allowing them to enter this one. So that their entries still get votes occasionally. But that tends to both competitions dying XD Which is clearly not the aim. I not expecting to win, but if I entered each week, and got no votes every week it'd be disheartening even if I'm just entering for fun. Guess "fun" is what we're supposed to get from our individual gallery threads :?

Not sure who that was directed at, but I don't think it's impolite at all. Since anyone that's reading these comments should be willing to argue their point, but also listen to the opinion of others. It's bloody annoying when you don't want to be there, don't want to be involved and you're being forced to (Eg Door Knocking) As for ranting, I've never actually seen you provide any decent argument/discussion, so maybe if you'd make more valid posts then it'd be worth contacting you?

Sexiest: Seph (Catgirls nearly always win) Best Constructed: Waq (Cheat skill :P ) Favorite: Seph (See above XD) Most realistic: Lumi (Though I was torn between Amelia and Lumi) Scariest: Reaper (Shriveled Karel :P The emotionless mug be Acey was really good too. Nickt's splice didn't look scary at all, just... awkward?)

Well at least you're not stupid. I honestly don't care what anyone says regarding this, but if anyone thinks that actually believing in "God" determines a person worth (judgement direction) then they're idiots. If God does consider it important, then I'm still not wrong, he is! XD My opinion on this is fear tactics used by the Church too :P Personally though, if there is a hell and heaven, and God does send you to hell for not believing him. I'd willingly go to hell. One because I hate God, but more importantly that's where my friends would be as well. I've never suffered torture before, but I'd probably prefer it over going to heaven and knowing that the people I care for are condemned to eternal suffering.

Had a tough time choosing between Fuuka and Amelia, but ended up chosing the former cause it looks cuter :P Astel's probably was the most professional, but it wasn't in my top three unfortunately, (not an insult, just means the standard is high here). A mention to TheReaper for having the best "face". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So if I say Choc chip cookies are the best cookies, that couldn't possibly be interpreted as my opinion on cookies right? :/ Personally I think Seph over-reacted to your post, but mentioning a "third world portals" did make you seem a bit snide. Nickt seems to have a habit of coming off as rude, and I've played with him before on FEEF, sure he has "trouble" with people not seeing things in the same light as he does. A bit over sensitive, but he's not that bad.... I think. In this instance you were both over-reacting though :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don't see the need to get all protective over spritework, I mean, this is my fourth entry here and I've only ever got one vote XD Probably a "lol ur funny" vote at that as well. And personally, on many occassions I've thought of my entry as better then others which actually get votes. It's all just a matter of preference, and in creative work there never really is a "best" anyway.

*Sigh* I'm too old for this, whatever happened to the good old days when everyone took everything as a personal attack, and retaliated in kind? :/ Anyway "prioritize".... I have to assume God has his prioritize as he supposedly causes miracles to some (your shopping frenzy guy) and completely ignores others (Starving African kid). Obviously, the "visible" prioritize aren't restricted to any specific race (Yes America, God doesn't favor you), religion (Bad things happen to Christians too) or even how "good" a person you are. So is "God" choosing specific cases to "intervene" in, based on some divine ideology, Or does he have no control over things in general? He can only have 3 options, No control, Complete control or partial control, and if partial he'd needs to prioritize. If he has "complete control" over everything, and can solve every problem why isn't he? To teach us responsibility? Last I checked the dead don't get any smarter or better, they certainly won't learn (regardless of whether they turn to dirt, or suffer for eternity in hell). So I should believe I had a twin brother when I was born? Just cause there's no proof or evidence that I had a twin brother, he could still have existed right? This quote works only when the existence of both parties is certain. Eg: Just because there's no proof or evidence your mother loves you, doesn't mean she doesn't. You're playing with "if's" there, and once we get started on those, the possibilities become infinite. What "if" God doesn't exist? What "if" he wasn't immortal and he's already deceased? What "if" he's actually some evil being who is nothing more then a tyrant? I'd like to think "proof & evidence" isn't everything, there's no "p&e" that my friend will be a good friend, but I'd like to think she will be. There's no "p&e" my parents will return the money they owe me, but I'd like to think one day they will. (Very unlikely <_<) God's the same thing really, there's no "proof" that "God" existed. But many seem to like the idea of some guy watching them 24/7 365 days of the year. (I think it's just creepy) And that's up to them. If you feel that cares about you, that's your problem opinion. And while I don't respect it (cause I disagree and think of it as blind faith) you are apparently entitled to it :/ I just don't see how you can cite "existence" as proof of being special. Eg: I purchased a game 8 years ago. I enjoyed playing it at the time, but now think it's a rather crappy game, and have no idea why I liked it. I still have it, but it's not special to me in any way. If someone asked if they could borrow it, I'd let them keep it for free. Only reason I haven't sold it is because I hate second hand game traders. Rip offs those sods are, buy for 50 cents, sell for 50 dollars <_< Being a former believer, God didn't try to prevent me from leaving the faith. He might of but he's pretty stupid if he though making his followers nag and stalk would rekindle my faith. :/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Question though(for everyone), what's your opinion on non-believers, you've stated that you can "agree to disagree" but are we non-believers condemn to hell? If so, is faith so important that a good man should be punished solely for lacking faith? If not why is religion even important?

*Not voting for it* She looks like she's had the "new drugs" tested on her thoughMain issues I have is with the flat hair tips (bottom) it's not straight, but it cuts off too cleanly for it to look like hair IMO. Bow is pillow shaded. Hair shading could use work in general, but looks like you've completely neglected shading in the top-left corner of splice. (Hair)

Key word XD.... On a more serious note, I'm disagree with the "still here" equating to special comment. Does that make the common ant special? It still exists? Are criminals special? (Since frankly, we'll never get rid of them). I also find this logic highly offensive if flipped around. Since it seems to imply that extinct species weren't "special" and that those which die prematurely weren't "special" people. Divine? If that's anything other then dumb luck, I have a few complaints to make to your deity. People die due to unfair circumstances daily, circumstances which they may have no control over. And here "God" is wasting time on an idiot who went on a shopping frenzy? The typical "God wants us to make our own decisions and grow stronger" rubbish doesn't fit in here at all. If you were stupid enough to overspend your budget you deserve the consequences of walking home... even if it'll take several hours. An interesting quote, but one that's not very useful. :/ Either way, God and his "divine" prioritize are seriously screwed up then. I find this way of thinking very narrow-minded, despite it promoting acceptance of other people's ideas. Since essentially it looks more like "Yeah whatever I don't care" then there being two different valid opinions. Being a discussion thread, analyzing and critiquing eachothers comments and interpretations is what makes things interesting. I'm not saying an agreement always has to be reached. But dismissing the responses and queries regarding your comments as "Just my opinion, don't want to discuss it further" makes you seem like an upstart, a passive friendly upstart, but someone who looks down on others none the less. Meat sounds good, though I'm not a fan of milk. More of a tea person, but fried chicken and tea has proved to be a painful combination on my stomach :P

You're either missing the point or referring to something different. There's a distinct difference between being influenced by a game, and actually confusing it with reality. You're statement is true in that if "you" blur the lines between the two and try to emulate "in-game" material, externally into the real world. "Idiot" fits pretty well. However influence doesn't necessarily mean if you play shooting games, you'll pick up a gun and start shooting people. It may however mean you'll be more desensitized to the idea of harming another. The "harm" is negative, but if you try to look at positive influences they're abundant. For example Koei's Dynasty Warriors Eww Dynasty Warriors) pulled a lot western gamers to become interested in Chinese literature. Using an example more closer to Serenes though, a lot of people here seem to think that an actual "weapon triangle" exists. Using an extreme example, I studied with a kid who's doing his second year of law at college. And according to him, he wasn't interested in Law at all until playing the Phoenix Wright games :/ I admit (and he is too) that getting into law via Phoenix Wright is a bit sad, but he's no means an idiot is he? It's the the main point with the "violent video games create violent people" theory I'm against. It "won't" create a more violent person. But it may influence their behavior and life in a small or major aspect. I can understand why "gamers" would get all defensive in regards to this, but it's not really any different from a movie, novel, or even the people you hang out with. Using parents as an example, having a serial rapist for a father, doesn't mean the son will turn into a serial rapist, but if the son wasn't disgusted by the act it is more likely to make him follow in his fathers footsteps.

In other words it's Gods way of telling us we've over-flourished and we need to cut down on our numbers, what better way to do it then natural disasters and a global war on resources. :P

Why the difference then? It's easy to just pass it off as "differences" between two regions, but it's not really something you can pass off as a culture difference. Probably the closest thing to an answer I'll get. I hadn't considered the judgments people would make in relation to the gaming acts, not in terms of right and wrong at least anyway. It's a good answer, but it doesn't really encompass the older players then. It's not like there'll be "Elmo and sex friends" or anything like that. I'd like to think that games like GTA aren't played by 6 and eight year olds. But many games are classified these days under 15+/17+/18+ (depending on country), and if I extend the question, that doesn't answer the question for older teenagers. I'll use the US in my next question (apologies if I get any facts completely wrong).The general age for consent in the US for sex averages around the age of 16. So in a NC-17 game, the purchaser would be able to actually commit the act, and by then they should be able to judge when and where it's right. Sorry, bad wording on my part, but which is more disturbing to a young kid: sex or violence? With various programs with violence in it (liek power rangers and TMNT), kids are more familiar with it that sex. Depends on the violence, Using the "horror" genre, I've known kids to respond greater to the possibility that a monster is out lurking outside their window. While they usually giggle, or go "Eww" at the sight of a not so graphic sex scene. I also think that there's a difference between slicing someone with a sword which somehow knocks people back and kills them without gore. In comparison to a blob spattering. In terms of mental construction: violence, sex and horror can leave a mark on a child so I don't agree with one being worse then the other in this specific example. Though I do agree we've (not sure about Europe considering the comments) become more accustomed to seeing violence then sex. As for "Negatively portrayed" I'm not sure if that's the case either. All of us, without exception have a day or two in the year where we just feel a bit "evil." And fleeing from authorities and attacking civilians has it's appeal. I saw my sister play Oblivion(?) a few years ago, and she occassionally took delight in setting some random village NPC's on fire, or zapping them with some other magic. I haven't played GTA, but I'm under the impression that if the option is there, it appeals to the audience at times. I certainly don't think the ability to attack civilians would be cited as a "con" for the game. Realistically? Yes, I agree there's a big difference between the two. But violence (especially in video games) results in the death of the enemy. And personally (in games) I'd rather see a dead man, then a swollen faced bloody figure groaning in pain. It's a matter of how far each goes. Using the "Titanic" sex scene, for example isn't exactly "explicit sex." And I fail to see how it's less appropriate then shooting someone and having blood spatter all over the screen and (in-game) surroundings.

Ah, okay. Not a fan of guns or cars so GTA has never really appealed to me. Nor do I live in the US, Hence I wasn't aware of the "outcry".To be a bitch :P @Eclipse "You speak as if the United States is the center of the world. It's not." I wasn't relating to the event Anouleth mentioned. And you shouldn't assume every comment made is related to your precious US. :P While I'm off topic though, wasn't GTA released awhile ago? Live several years ago? Manhunt too seems to be a pretty old game. (6 years?) And I'm not sure why you'd immediately connect this topic with something that happened that long ago. Guess it just was big enough to cause a memorable impression :/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Anouleth Thanks for clearing that up. I can't speak about all western countries but the ones I'm aware of, and have contact with (via people who I talk to online) seem to still think violence>sex. Could you point to which countries, or even which events indicate a higher level of tolerance for sex then violence? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Manhunt~ From what I've gathered, this is only showing that extreme amounts of realistic violence is rejected by game critics/society. And it'd be on par with something like showing a brutal rape scene. It does show that violence has it's limits (in terms of acceptability) It has little relevance to the topic of sex vs violence.

United States? I don't actually recall (and still don't recognize) the topics relevance to the united states. Could you clarify what you mean by that? What do you mean by affected "less?" I'm not sure I can agree with the first part since watching pornography isn't anymore likely to make someone go out and have sex, then a shooting game causing violence.The second I admit my phrasing was poor, however it doesn't portray the act as "wrong." And "in-game" it's encouraging us to be violent, to kill enemy soldiers/monsters. Smoking is a good example here. Media didn't neccessary say, "here's a cigarette, buy it!" (excludes ads). But through movie scenes it did give off a positive image. So in terms of RL society does that make violence a more heinous act? Or is murder simply pushing "violence" too far? If so, how about wheel chair bound, or permanently incapacitated? But violence is also arousing (not sexual) to some individuals? I know my younger sister takes awhile to come out her video games after she's done playing. That's not to say she's violent, but the language she uses after playing a game she enjoys changes, her personality becomes more social and confrontational. So it happens to both IMO.