Espinosa
-
Posts
7,503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Espinosa
-
-
Just wanted to correct that the Nugget Bridge only works in FireRed/LeafGreen, so it's not an option in any of the first generation games.
I also wouldn't give Swords Dance so much credit in RBY seeing how criticals cancel out all the attack boosts you receive, so somebody fast like Scyther or Pinsir will face high chances to crit (and therefore render the turns spent setting up with SD useless). It's probably deserving of mention on such lower-tier Pokemon as Kingler and Lickitung, though.
-
Dig is indeed an early available utility option, but a highly contested one at that. With really poor learnsets (those started improving with, like, generation 4?) in the game, it's too likely that somebody on your team will also want it. I mean, same power as Earthquake except available to way more Pokemon and acquired way earlier? Yes, please! Not something to be wasted on an HM slave, and if you're genuinely going to raise a Charmander for combat purposes, you'll teach Cut to something else.
-
Did a quick search to see if this has been discussed before but it didn't generate anything.
Found this while googling for something else (not really tips on how to get better at FE7, though I guess I could use some):
http://www.wikihow.c...n-Fire-Emblem-7
Some very dubious pieces of advice here, unintentionally making the game harder for the player if one were to follow them, including:
4 Use your low level units; using characters like Marcus seems very easy at first, but you will soon realize all the experience points will be wasted.5 Don't use Marcus.
11 Low level units that come late are usually some of the best units in the game.
15 Raise all of your units equally. (I.E, don't have a Warrior Lv. 1, and have another Warrior lv. 12) Balance it out and have both Warriors lv. 6. Two strong units is better than one!
19 Use the Arena to level up. Your butt can get saved so many times when you have level 20's and they are level 15.
There's apparently a discussion tab and one person there did humbly suggest that using Marcus is a must for ranked runs, and the site does give you a chance to approve or disapprove of the articles. Maybe somebody could give it a better try?
What mystifies me is that Sacred Stones camera screenshot at the top of the page, though.
-
If somebody gives science no credit, I don't see the benefits of making such people "aware" of science, because with that initial attitude they won't be making any contributions to its development anytime soon. And really, how more "aware" of it can we possibly get when urban life is surrounded with latest inventions and you can't exactly go without them if you want to properly function in today's society. Some people see television, the internet and iPhones and whatnot as a lesser evil rather than something that makes you proud of human progress, and I don't see why deceitful techniques would be needed to convince people of the opposite. What would that achieve anyway? Encourage donations? Give Apple more customers? Just establish peace between the secular and the traditional values? I honestly don't see the point of that manoeuvring when all you get is dubious bragging rights about how you "ahahaha convinced a silly Creationist" of something by being dialectically dishonest in a questionable community like reddit's.
-
The worst character is probably the one pirate in TRS who reduces every allied unit's stats within 3 squares range or something.
-
I started my second playthrough in the game and remembering just how much I screwed up the first time I played (due to giving people items they have no use for and then being unable to easily pass them over to units who would appreciate those items more). I even missed getting Holsety because the guide I was checking for item locations neglected to mention it.
I wanted to ask for a little support with choosing who should get which items. Sigurd got the Speed Ring so far (because he's always my boss killer of choice, when it's not Levn) but I'm not sure about the rest. The inheritance system is still confusing to me because I didn't make it very far when I first tried the game. I want to plan ahead and get 50+ kills with Sigurd's Silver Sword and Hero Axe, but I'm not sure if anybody will be inheriting those. If I want the kids to inherit the items, what are some of the best choices I could make in the first chapter of the game? Many thanks.
-
The userbase makes forums what they are, as I see it. So as long as the people here provide thought-provoking and interesting content (with more of it being borne in co-operation and discussion), I will personally be inclined to come and read, perhaps participate.
-
They did achieve commercial success by getting Roy, Marth and Ike into Super Smash Bros, didn't they? I don't see how a different game will change the status of the series dramatically. The art work does look a bit too anime-ish, but there have always been "waifus" in Fire Emblem that the fans enjoyed ogling over. Search up just about any FE girl's name and you'll find some YouTube videos dedicated to their appreciation.
-
Really enjoyed reading this, thank you for your time.
-
First off, the idea that Christianity or that science make existence devoid of beauty is an aesthetic judgement like any other. The Old and New Testaments have a beauty to them, then there are beautiful paintings of the Virgin Mary, Saints, medieval knights facing dragons, and the like.
If you're talking about the Christian icon, then I wouldn't agree that it's the right place to look for a testament of earthly beauty. Those icons are symbolical to a high extent, pointing to belonging to the other world, depicting people who renounced this one. I personally have a problem with this, because, as trite as it may sound, I happen to seek beauty, comfort and joy in this here life, right now.
Second off, Christianity and secular science don't "refuse a connection," there are in fact scientists who believe in god. Then there's Christian Atheism, which is the belief in Christian teachings without the belief in Christianity.Science and Christianity were a single entity for quite a time, I'll agree with this. It was the monks doing all the research, and studying thoroughly and whatnot. Key freethinking or secular scientists are offspring of Christianity and its culture, and if it were any different, we wouldn't have made the discoveries that changed our world. This makes militant atheism intolerance towards belief in that the five senses do not exhaust the human experience or, on the contrary, the conservative unwillingness to accept evolution as a fact, to cite an example, all the more absurd.
I also refute your concept of paganism as some sort of universal concept. There is no way to know what pagans as a general group believed of the world, to attempt to collectivize different traditions under one blanket and make assertions about them is quite arrogant itself. In Greek and Egyptian cultures, there was an afterlife which, AFAIK, there was no hope of return from except for Osiris in Egyptian culture. Additionally there were the teachings of the divine wheel of rebirth in Socrates or Plato's teachings. This is just an example of how your generalizations are quite simplistic.No, sorry but you don't. It's not at all impossible to find out what different pagans believed in, since you have the written and archaeological data from the past, not to mention the existing pagan tribes and nations that still live on.
In Ancient Greek mythology, the underworld was hardly after life in the meaning you are applying to it. Hades was for the privileged, for 'special' heroes and special villains. The other souls were believed to simply take other form upon the end of their earthly life, transmigrating endlessly. I'm fairly convinced the concept of reincarnation was not foreign to Egyptians either, but of course I am aware that it's not shared unanimously by every single pagan religion. That was the view that governed when Christianity made its way to the top as a state religion in Egypt, Armenia, Syria, Rome etc., which is what I needed to get my point across.
Finally, if Paganism is "correct" as a worldview, than Christianity is just one more usurpation, which means that none of those concepts were actually "brought forth" by Christianity since they already existed.Can't say I made any sense out of this. To clarify what I was trying to say, paganism is indeed universal as there is not a single ethnicity out there that hasn't been pagan at some point. Paganism is also not merely heritage of the past, but reality. I'm not only referring to the pagan cultures that have survived in different parts of the world, but this pronounced pagan approach to life that never really left us. It is also not futile at all to speak of pagans' unity, because pagans are, believe it or not, the most religiously tolerant people. A pagan will travel to a different land and won't be displeased at all to worship different deities from those he is used to, because he will recognise the god in question as serving for a specific purpose, and the only difference that will remain will be an insignificant one - that of the name. Judaism, Christianity, Islam... They were very different in this regard. No devout follower of either will ever agree that the other religions worship the same being under a new name. The Jews were always at war with the other tribes, and the Judaic God was constantly in rage with their flirting with the heathen customs of the next pagan culture they had contact with. Christians were systematically persecuted in the Roman Empire, singled out of the other religions with which the rulers had no problems with.
As for the usurper theory being applicable in this case, Christianity doesn't see the Father as an usurper, but as a creator of the universe who is constantly ruling. He had no predecessor and will have no successor. Of course, various religious syncretist sects, like the various gnostical schools of thought, did believe that the creator of the universe was a malevolent being, an usurper, and had God and Satan change roles in their systems, but those were no Christians.
-
An interesting view, but who is to say how long a pagan world view would remain? Further, atheists don't find murder wrong because it's morally wrong be religions' standards. It's morally wrong to kill because we have no right to take another's life. Death, however, is something we see as necessary, obviously.
Atheists in the West have been nurtured by the same culture (that has formed as a result of several centuries of stability), therefore it is natural for them to share the Christian morality naturally, without giving it much thought. I'd like to encourage you to take your doubt one step further - why do we feel that we have no right to take another's life? And it's no surprise that you say we do feel one's life is one's right, because a right goes under the category of Law, which also shaped not without the Christian participation to say the least. That, and your name is Phoenix Wright. I kid, I kid.
Religion: faith. Science: evidence. They are fundamentally different. They are incompatible with each other, but some choose to ignore that.I've heard this countless times before, and it appears more incredible each time I seriously think about it.
Science relies on faith just as religion (in particular, Christianity since that's most topical in our milieu) relies on reason. For one, the scientific method demands faith in itself, faith that we can indeed learn things about the world we live in and that the scientific method is capable of providing us with that knowledge through experience. Similarly, if reason had clearly suggested Christians that Jesus was never a historical person, or that he was an ordinary bloke who died like the rest (archaeology testifying that his body was buried here or there, or something, and that there was no resurrection to speak of), there would be no point in treating the Bible as anything but an elaborate allegory from one of the greatest humanists and there would be no Christianity and no Christians. But it just happens that you have all those people who are convinced in the historical authenticity of the events described in the Bible, and who have the experience of communication and life in faith to make it something more than awareness of facts, or a gnosis of some kind.
There's plenty of people that describe the beauty of the Universe. Most science personalities do so (Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox).I'm not doubting that specific representatives, both Christian and secular, are capable of finding beauty in their world view and sharing it with the world in a convincing manner. It's still necessary to remember that much of this was born in polemics, out of necessity to persuade or convert. Omar Khayyam is another scientist-poet (one who, I'll confess, interests me quite a bit more than any contemporary personality), not to mention a Muslim-poet as well. I'm not accusing every single person with either belief system of literary, artistic or aesthetic impotence - you don't know me, but trust me when I say I know better than that - I'm saying theology and the scientific method as such do not leave any place for any kind of poetry. The reason we see it is because there is an effort to have some of it too.
-
I love how everybody's discussing attack accuracies already.
-
-
Well, it's fairly simple - sports itself has nothing to do with spirituality, and attending games and competition can not be seen as a spiritual activity unless outside factors are involved. Unless there's a different definition of spirituality that I'm unaware of.
And fair enough, I nearly forgot the US remains a strongly religious country even today, or at least positions itself as such. How high is the percentage of constant church goers?
-
I always find it perplexing when people are blamed for "wanting attention". You're either saying attention is somehow not an urge relevant to you at all, or you're projecting your own intentions upon others, not to mention suddenly have the credibility to define what the motivation of the people around you are, as if you know what they really want better than they do themselves. I'm not too fond of either way to be honest.
-
Christianity brought forth the concept that time is moving somewhere, that the history has a direction, that what lies ahead is brand new. The pagan view of the world was much different, as people believed they could return to Earth again and again, that the soul would materialise endlessly taking different form each time. Even the deities would change one after another, one usurper replacing the previous one. Ouroboros is a good symbol signifying that. Such a world view was mandatory for where we ended up, and it has stayed, alongside other positive and negative aspects of the Christian vision, in the sort of indifferent or sometimes even militantly irreligious attitude that defined much of new science.
Such an argument would explain why modern atheism in the West is so close to Christianity. An atheist will be disgusted by murder or any vile act of similar proportions as much as any Christian (in the pagan world view, such acts are nothing but a necessity, and as unfortunate as it may be for an individual to marry his mother and kill his own father, or for a mother to kill her children, tough luck for the people involved but it had to be done - even the gods were but slaves to rules of necessity beyond their control). So on the one hand, we have the morality that is grown within the same culture, shared between the people within that culture, on the other hand we have the reliance on reason, often to the point of self-negation, obtained from several centuries of theological disputes.
And really, read some natural science and theology, and you'll see how both disciplines make the divine, the Earth, space, etc. so empty and devoid of beautiful, poetic terms that should be applied to those subjects instead of thousands of pages of scholastic nonsense. Christianity and secular science are of the same kind, siblings you could say, and the only possible explanation why they're refusing to acknowledge their connection is arrogance.
-
I think much of today's secular thought is the product of Christian history turned upside down. All those clever arguments concerning the Trinity and the essences of Christ couldn't have possibly lead to anything else but our inhumanly fast (in its progress) science. If you want to blame somebody for today's technology-driven world, you'll have to blame Christianity as well. Or thank it if you happen to appreciate where we are now, whichever way works for you. The Greeks, the Romans on their own with their vision of history and progress... wouldn't have ended up with the same culture we have in any imaginable scenario.
-
I don't see why the constant reference to religion is even necessary in a discussion like this. Homophobia is a pronounced social issue, and intolerance towards gays (or anybody who stands out in any way, really) is a social phenomenon, and should be treated as such. For example, team sports is an area where coming out of closet is still considered unthinkable, and that's in the 21st century. Is it the "Christian influence" again? Look at the fans, look at the players and what sort of lifestyle they represent. No asceticism to be found there, but a lot of sweaty men running around swearing and going wild over one little ball. Such an environment is as far from spirituality as it gets, and yet it fosters and breeds violence and discrimination. How come?
-
I'm honestly not surprised. Most "hardcore" gamers disregard immediate effectiveness in favour of eventual strength at maximum potential, so people who like to spend their nights grinding tend to shout much louder than speed runners and efficiency-interested players.
-
I remember finding his songs funny and cool as a kid, before I knew enough English to actually make any sense out of them.
-
Nice to see a discussion on this game.
I think Rennie could go up, seeing how she levels up really fast and is 10% likely to receive a movement boost each level (which is twice as likely compared to say Lionel). Plus, the bows are great in this game.
The archers suffer from the same inability to counter at 1 range as in other FE games (and I notice myself fighting with Plum Lances more than any other weapon on my best units), but at least Holmes gets swords upon promotion. I think he could move up, too.
-
-
Bored, snobbish, introverted, obedient...
-
Lying to adults can be acceptable too. There's little virtue in truth (as in precision of information provided) if it stings.
How to Be Better in Fire Emblem 7
in Fire Emblem
Posted
What I notice from watching different let's players on YouTube is that they all seem to compensate for Marcus's absence by fielding frail units with high speed, like Erk and Guy, and putting them into the range of several enemies at once, and then scream in horror when 40% accurate attacks miss 10 ten times in a row during enemy phase.
And really, if you arena abuse, you have more of a reason to use the ol' Marcus - Marcus conveniently solos the maps, then his mates train in the arena. I don't understand though, if Marcus is to blame for "hogging exp", why is it okay to level Raven to 20/0, promote him and then have HIM hog that exp. Sure, Raven ends up with stats enabling him to be competent in Endgame thanks to his growths when trained fully, but where did all the paranoia of levelling lower-levelled units go?
Just doesn't seem consistent, that's all.