Steampunk

You also ignored the study saying rates hook-ups and relationships were about the same. No, it doesn't. It does fit "most" in terms of people who participated in the study, but the study is targeting a specific demographic, age group, and geographic location in the world. This percentage is not based on the total human population. It is a percent of a percent of everyone on earth. In what universe is that "most people?" You also didn't read the "Conclusions" section (a rather important part, in my opinion). For your benefit: What that is basically saying is, even people who do "hook up" only do so because they feel it is a social norm, or how they're supposed to approach it. In reality, they would rather have a genuine relationship despite this. Actually, you're the one claiming its most people. You have to prove that, and you'll have to do much better than cherry picking statistics and making false generalizations. I told you: let the evidence tell its tale. Don't fill in the gaps with what you want to be true or what you think is correct. And you base this on what? Show me statistics that 80% of men are abusive to or mistreat women. Typically, people who are investigating something actually form their opinion of the truth after seeing the facts, not the other way around. If you form your opinion first then only read studies that agree with you, ur doing it wrong. Also, "educate people where I can on the truth" makes it sound like you think you're a great deal smarter than everyone else on this matter. As I've said many times: if you already know everything, you can't learn anything. And you haven't presented any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny that supports "most" either.

You really should read that study again as that's not the only thing it says. It appears you deliberately picked that statement because it supported your claim and strategically ignored the parts of that article that said hook ups didn't appear to be any more common than actual relationships. It also mentioned a report done by the National Center for Health Statistics that said there was an increase of people ages 18-24 reporting they were still virgins. It looks quite bad if you blatantly and shamelessly ignore contradicting evidence in your own cited article. Even if the numbers of the study are true, all it shows is the number of hook ups people have had. It doesn't cover motivations, the circumstances of those hook ups, and psychoactive substances that may affect people's judgement/reduse inhibitions...none of that. So, even if that sentence you quoted is true, it still doesn't prove your claim that people are more interested in hook ups and not concerned with more long-term consequences of sex because this study only covers rates of reported hook-ups (which this article admits is a very vague term that means different things to different people), not motivations, reasoning, or what the people were thinking when they decided to "hook up." Here is a study on hook up culture from the American Psychological Association's website. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/02/ce-corner.aspx If you have the time, you might want to look it over. I think it does a good job of investigating the phenomenon. Make sure you have an open mind and let the evidence tell its tale though. You can't properly investigate something if you already know you've got all the answers.

I never said they were people on this site. Some friends of mine (IRL and on other sites) think that if you're not "going balls to the wall," you shouldn't even bother and have asked me why I prefer a more laid back approach to gaming. It seemed relevant, so I shared my thoughts on the "hardcore vs casual" gaming phenomenon.

Here's my meager attempt with "Fearless Frederick"

I think guns would be out of place, but a sling or atlatl could fit as a third ranged weapon. If you absolutely have to have guns, a Chinese fire lance (basically, a spear with a gun barrel full of powder and shot attached to the end) could be a good compromise between guns and Fire Emblem. I would also think about "trap" weapons like caltrops. Then again, maybe not. Those could be prone to abuse. Edit: forgot about chakram. They'd make a good throwing weapon too. Now that I think about it, India's given us some weird ass (yet cool) bladed weapons. Dandpatta, bagh nakh, Katars, and urumi "whip swords"...those guys definitely had a style all their own in the weapons department. Roman scissors could make for lulz too. Get a 'zerker to dual wield those and watch enemies wet themselves.

Don't really care one way or another about LTC. Really don't care one way or another about LTCers thinking I'm not playing the game right. If you paid for my 3DS and Awakening, I just might actually give a shit about your thoughts on my play style. Since I spent the money, really I'm the only person I listen to about it. I'm open to tips and advice, but really don't care if I'm not playing the game "properly." Just for shits and giggles, "Casual" in the most eloquent language of Gamer-ese, refers to a group of gamers who are mindlessly buying creatively bankrupt, cash-in games that are dragging down the "Viddiyuh Gaim Industree." I refer to myself as a recreational gamer so that people realize I play for fun, and don't stand outside Wal-Mart waiting for it to open so I can score the first copy of Monster's Inc Kart Racing. Personally, I really don't care if you say "casual" or "recreational" or whatever word jumps out at you; but considering the implications of a "casual gamer," I can see why some people take issue with others calling them that. There's only one way we can all come together and get along, and that's finding another group of people we can all hate as brothers and sisters. I propose dentists to be the target of our unified animosity. In all seriousness, I'm part of the casual crowd. Some LTCers asked how that could possibly be fun. Can't speak for everyone else, but I enjoy experimenting. I like trying out different units and approaches. LTC runs don't allow enough flexibility to do that. I also like "flipping" characters. Kinda like flipping real estate: you take a shitty house and turn it in to something nice. I enjoy experimenting with new ways of putting characters to use, and turning characters most people ignore in to legitimately dangerous units. Practical? Not really, but it amuses me and that's the point. Think about it in terms of cars. LTCers want to win the Indy 500. I prefer to PImp My Ride.

That actually looks much better than my original. You wouldn't be considering a job as a professional post decrapifier? Seriously, sometimes I remind myself of Foghorn Leghorn: ramblin', ah say ramblin' about thangs. THANGS that is.

I figure if they went to the trouble of getting voice actors, they might as well have just done actual voice acting. It's not bad, I just don't get why you'd audition and hire voice actors just to have them record five lines.

It is a well known scientific fact that red heads are awesome. You can't argue with science. Beware of their close cousins the Gingers though.

Yeah, that's exactly how the TTs were in Melee. The difference being the Trophy Tussles were event matches, so you expected the fight to be balanced in the CPU's favor. There's really no good reason for CPUs to ignore each other and focus on the player in Vs. Mode imo. A Battle Royale match should be exactly that: everyone for themselves.

Not sure why people hate Olivia so much. I know personal experience doesn't mean much when talking about characters, but she's crit like a mother****er when I get her to Swordmaster (without Killing Edge) on every playthrough I've done. Cherche and Cordelia should never be considered the worst characters because they are red heads which automatically makes them superior to characters whose crotches lack fire.

I think Pokemon has the right idea with tall grass. There are certain zones where you'll have random encounters if you want them. FFIII on the SNES drove me crazy with them. Sometimes you just want to get from Point A to Point B. When the game stops you every five steps, it works your nerves after a while. Fallout 3/NV had an interesting twist on random encounters where you'd know about where enemies would spawn and have an idea where you could expect to find them, but they'd wander around and wouldn't necessarily be in the same place all the time. I think "real time" random encounters in games (where it doesn't stop everything you're doing and drag you into a battle screen) would work fine.

Melee felt faster and crazier and I liked the stages in Melee better. Brawl really feels slowed down in comparison. I'm also kinda annoyed that CPU players always go for the human player above all else in Brawl. Now and again, when I can't get other people to play, I'll do a 4 man Royale match that really feels a lot more like a 1 vs 3 match. Just to see if I was being paranoid, I built a map where they could not attack me without using pokemon/trophies. If they couldn't attack me at all, they'd just walk around waiting for me to get within their reach even though it was a Royale match and they could fight each other. Maybe some people like that, but I think it's annoying. In Melee, the CPU didn't care who they beat up on unless you kept attacking/KOing them. Again, it made the fight feel more chaotic and the game was just as entertaining with CPUs as with actual people when friends weren't available to play with you.

*grabs popcorn* I have a hard time calling anyone in this game "the worst" since they can all become OPed killing machines if you want to put the time in. Instead, I'll just pick on the people I use the least: Virion, Ricken, Donnel, Kellam (on the fence with this one), and Frederick (same here too). Also don't use Lucina that much for some reason. Don't know why that it. Don't use Virion because I just don't like him. Don't use Ricken because there are other options that work just as well if not better. Don't use Donnel because I don't like putting units in daycare until they can walk on their own two feet. Don't use Kellam much because I don't like knights/generals too much and I usually have to put him in daycare as well when I reclass him to thief. I try to avoid using Freddy since he's a pre-promote. When I do start using him, he's a good deal behind everyone else because I didn't use him before. He is pretty solid when I do keep him up to par though.

This statement shows quite perfectly how teen logic works. Someone else is the problem. The teen is never at fault. The OP has the same type of thinking: the father is just an asshole. The OP is completely innocent and never does anything wrong. The OP doesn't provoke the father in any way: he's just a douche. That's probably why older people don't listen to teen logic. It pretty much boils down to the teen ducking any responsibility and shifting blame on to someone else. It's what magical about Internet : For the first time in history children are wiser than their own parents.Not really. Children think they know more about life, but there's no Wiki that substitutes for actual life experience. The fact that children think they know more about the world than someone who's lived in it for many years shows me they aren't wiser and they won't likely be wiser in the future. All the internet does is help children fool themselves in to thinking they know more than someone with a steady income who has spent many years living in the real world.

Most people I know who date are rather straightforward about their intentions (myself included). If a friend wants to go out with someone, they usually just ask. That way, there's no confusion as to what's going on. I think playing hard to get or subtle mind games is more a movie/tv thing to make the relationship more interesting in terms of plot/story line. It's been a while since I was in high school, I don't remember that going on there. If someone wanted to date a girl, they asked her out. If a girl wanted to date a guy, she'd ask him out (though that was far less common). If they wanted to play "hide the sausage," they did that too. I wouldn't play hard to get, because that gives guys/girls the wrong idea. You don't want someone thinking they have to "earn" you or prove they're worth your attention, because that is very exploitative and most people with any sense avoid such a boy/girlfriend. Just be straightforward. You want to have lunch or dinner with someone? Ask them. It might also be a good idea to let them know that this is a date: not just a casual dinner (thought that depends on the situation). If you make it clear what they want from them, it'll save you and your romantic interest a good deal of awkwardness. It also shows them that you are an honest person who doesn't play games, which counts for a lot with most people. Don't take offense, but I think you have the wrong mindset. In dating, there aren't "winners and losers." Either someone's interested in you or they aren't. If you ask someone on a date and they say yes, they're interested in you. You haven't "won" anything: they genuinely want to get to know you better. If they say no, you haven't "lost" anything either. Before you asked, you didn't have anyone to have dinner with. After they said no, you're not any worse off than before. You're not any less of a human being, you aren't any dumber, etc. If you're going after men/women who want you to prove yourself, those are not the men/women you need to be pursuing. Yon don't want a spouse/significant other who's always needing you to prove you're worth their time. You want someone who enjoys being around you and doing things with you. As for dominance in the relationship, that's up to each person. Some men want a strong, independent woman who can take charge. Other men like to wear the pants in the household and want a woman who's okay with that. Same thing with women: some like to take charge and others are happy to let their spouse lead the way. It all depends on what a person wants. The rest of your life is a long time to be someone other than yourself. You'd have to be a pretty good actor to pull that off. Honesty is very important in relationships because you have to trust the other person. It's really hard to trust someone who isn't forthcoming with you. When you get married (or enter a civil union, or whatever you care to call it), you are sharing assets (bank accounts, ownership of property, custody of any children, etc). If you're dishonest in how you handle your family finances, that's going to cause huge problems with any rational human being that is contributing their salary to them. If a girl cannot trust you to be honest with her about little things that don't matter, they won't feel they can trust you with important things such as shared assets and children. If you just want sex from someone but lie to them about your intentions and make them think you're actually interested in them as a person and not as a sexual conquest, that's going to cause huge problems as well. In either case, honesty matters a great deal. If you're dating boys/girls who lie just to get laid, you're hanging out with the wrong people if you want to find an actual boy/girlfriend. Sorry for yet another long-winded post. I really need to start trimming these down.

If you take the time to level Fiona up in Easy (or possibly Normal if you like to live dangerously), she can turn in to a good wall unit. The Dawn Brigade needs all the defense/resistance they can get, and her HP recovery skill only helps her absorb attacks. It takes a bit of work to get her there (since her offence is pretty rough), though so you may not want to bother. Also bear in mind, the more time you put in to developing Fiona, the less time you'll put in to developing Jill, Aran, Nolan, etc. Basically, you can bust your hump to get Fiona up to par, or you can just focus on characters that are already good to go and make them even better. She makes a good punching bag, but you're probably better off focusing on other units. Haven't ever gotten Meg to endgame, so I can't say much about her. I'll just say I really don't get the point of characters that show up under leveled and under powered who disappear for a while. Really, why are they even units in the game? Just make them NPCs for plot reasons instead of filling up the roster with units nobody wants to use.

I apologize for jumping on you then. Sure. You wouldn't want to expose yourself to enemy weapons IRL, though historic armies also didn't have magic staves that completely healed a person's injuries. Regardless, I misunderstood what you were saying, so sorry for cracking down on you. I just think character design and graphics are stupid things to complain about when rating a video game. Not saying you are, just saying that sort of thing gets my hackles up.

I don't consider Ike to be one (though he is rather generic as far as heroes go). First of all, he relies on other people quite a bit. He has Soren handle strategy, has Titania help with managing the mercenary company/army, relies on assistance from the Laguz kings, etc. Secondly, his skills are limited to certain ones that make sense for the character (mainly swordsmanship), and they are skills he's actually had to develop (rather than being a masterful swordsman the first time he picks up a sword, he trains under his father and gets a good deal of swordsmanship practice throughout PoR). He's not a master of every skill he needs to save the day all by himself (strategy, magic, the Serenes galdrars, etc). He is really popular among other characters fighting with him, but that's also happens with real military leaders. My grandfather and most of the people from his generation I've run in to (who fought in WWII) loved the shit out of Eisenhower. Kinda Sue-ish but we do see that sort of thing (soldiers with a little hero worship for their commanders) in real life too, so popularity in this case is tricky. In RD, he's built up as a super-powerful fighter, but he's also "proven himself" in PoR; so I don't think that counts against him either. There are other characteristics of Sues, but I really don't want to go through every last common theme (but feel free to bring up any you feel apply). I think I've hit on the more prominent ones though, and I don't think Ike fits the bill personally. Depends on which one we're talking about. If you mean Ike, see above. Even if I am way off base and he is a Sue, it doesn't seem to hurt the story that much much. If we're talking about Samus, Mario, etc, same thing. It works for the games they're in, so it's not worth fussing over. Don't recall any video games that have really shameless Sue heroes, though I have watched some tv shows that did (Andromeda's Dylan Hunt and Xena, even though the show was entertaining) come to mind.

I always take reviews with a safe dose of salt, mostly because they only serve to justify what someone already thinks about a game more than anything else. I think this review brings up a lot of good points if you don't like the game. Honestly, there's only one metric I use when deciding whether a game is "good" or not: does it keep me amused? I can do some technical breakdown and analysis of all my thoughts on a games flaws and how it's objectively bad, but there's only one thing I really care about and that's whether or not I enjoy playing it. I do enjoy Awakening, and don't think any of the points raised hurt the game enough to make it unenjoyable for me. If you do agree with this review, I guess you should first ask yourself if you like the game in the first place. It's a video game, not a documentary. I don't think realistic battle dress was high on their list of priorities when it came to character design. If we're going to complain about how impractical everyone's outfits are, then (in the interests of fairness) we should complain about the impracticality swords and daggers are as weapons, the massive armor-plated suits knights and generals wear and also question the wisdom of having archers attack from a very short distance by themselves (or with just one other unit) instead of from longer distances in large groups. Or we can accept that it's just a video game, and a work of fiction, and aesthetics matter more than realism in just about every other video game ever made. Just my two cents, for what its worth.

I go to the gym, but much prefer recreational exercise. I love tennis and football and there's plenty of running involved in both, so it's a good way for me to burn calories without making it feel like work.

I wasn't addressing you in particular. When I said "You could also argue that many supporting cast characters from Fire Emblem are Sues with this logic," that was not targeting you personally; it's just shorter than saying "a person could argue" or "someone could argue. I use "you" in a generic way. Also I quoted your definition so people would know what traits I was saying applied to most Nintendo characters (more specific than saying "Mary Sue" for those who don't know what that is, and saves redundancy of me listing off traits myself since most would be the same that you listed). When you asked what my argument was, I thought it was in reference to Chiki. I haven't disputed anything you've said as far as I know. You're welcome to show me where I have if I'm mistaken. When you're talking about character development, you're talking about one of two things: the actual character development process (creating backstory, physical appearance, traits, personality), and how the character changes over time. I say Mary Sues are poorly/underdeveloped because they are very shallow on a conceptual level and they never undergo any real change. On the drafting table, they are perfect. People like them, they do nice things "just because," they overcome every obstacle with ease, etc. Such a character takes no real thought or effort and do not reflect an actual, real life human being. Their backstories consist of what the author most likely wishes their own backstory was like. Their personalities are that of what the author wishes their's was like, etc, etc, etc. Such a character is more or less a list of things the author finds appealing with weak links holding them together. A conceptually well developed character takes a lot more thought and effort because everything they are, everything they've done in their backstory, and how that shapes their personality and traits has to make logical sense. Their personality, skills, appearance, etc. all have to reflect what they've experienced regardless of whether the author (or anyone for that matter) finds appealing and their traits have to resemble what an actual person's would be. People don't like Mary Sues because they can't connect with them. They can't connect with them because they are designed to be perfect. They are designed to be perfect because they are poorly developed. They are poorly developed because they are built entirely out of what the author considers an ideal character with no thought as to whether their backstory justifies their personality or traits, or even if their backstory makes sense. They are built entirely out of superficial things the author wishes about him/herself or just likes in general. Secondly, a character develops (or grows) over time. To do this, a character needs flaws and hardship (the author has to make the character suffer from something). Mary Sues do not grow as characters because they are either flawless, or the author simply doesn't allow them to experience hardship. In either case, the Mary Sue has no reason to grow as a person: everything works out just fine the way things are. As in real life, if the status quo is just fine, a person has no reason to change in any way. So, they stay the same and never evolve. Since they don't change or grow over time, they never "develop." If they never develop, they are justifiably considered "underdeveloped" or "poorly developed." That is why Mary Sues are looked down on: they are static, unchanging characters either because they are "too perfect" or the author refuses to let them get a little roughed up (most likely because the Sue is their perfect creation and they don't want anything to happen to it). That's why I say they are underdeveloped, and why I consider them a special class of poorly developed characters. They are conceptually superficial and never undergo any significant change as a person.

As already said, it's not so much they suck as they can be put to better use.

Family members drive each other crazy all the time. If he's in his sixties, arthritis, forgetfulness, and other age-related issues probably aren't helping his temper either. My mother's deaf, and she always lashes out at my father and I because she can't hear us and that's somehow our fault. Really though, she's just frustrated with herself because she can't hear. She also hurts all the time with joint and bone issues, and was raised in a time when people weren't supposed to show weakness: so she tries to hide it and compensates with aggressiveness any time a "weakness" becomes apparent. Honestly, being old sucks. The only advantage it had was that is people listened to you. People don't anymore, so getting old kinda sucks on every level now. Well, except for senior discounts I suppose. Those are still in effect in the US.

Yeah. That pretty much sums it up. Not criticizing your definition, just saying all Ninty heroes are cut from the same cloth so to speak. Mario, Link, and Samus are tongue-in-cheek comparisons because there's not much to read in to, but they still fit the archetype nonetheless. Chiki disagreed with me about them being Sues, and I'm explaining why I think that. If someone says I'm wrong about something, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if I explain why I think I'm right. If they come up with more reasons why I'm wrong, I'll refute those too in the name of good-natured pointless discussion. If that sort of thing is frowned upon on SF outside of the Serious Discussion section, I apologize for the disruption and hijack. If it's getting annoying, just say so.