Anouleth

Hmm, maybe this is the problem with gun legislation in America: nobody actually knows anything about guns! They just pretend to on internet forums, but when it comes to a real question, they admit they have no real knowledge. Hah, I have exposed your country for the rotten sham it is.

So what, just because Ike and Mia are both sword-fighters, they should be able to fall in love? That's ridiculous. Just because people have one thing in common, doesn't make them compatible.

This is the reality of how modern politics works in America. Senators and Representatives no longer spend time researching the country they are trying to legislate for. Increasing amounts of the time of congressmen are spent fundraising or building political support in their own party, so they can be re-elected. This is why many bills nowadays are ghost-written by lobbyists. Being ghost-written by a lobbyist isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's probably better that a bill that concerns, say, private medical insurers is written by a person who knows quite a lot about private medical insurers rather than the elected representative who knows nothing about the subject. But in this case, it gives you the shitty choice of either putting the control of the nation's gun policy entirely into the hands of the NRA leadership, or putting it into the hands of know-nothings. Actually, it is the job of the government to make people feel safe. Political philosophy differs on many things, but pretty much all political philosophy agrees that the most basic and important function of government to protect it's subjects from physical harm or coercion by establishing a monopoly on violence. Freedom of fear has been called a fundamental right of Americans since the 1940s. And it would seem pretty clear, that if you were, say, a Jew, and people were walking around making speeches calling for your extermination, calling you vermin, that you'd feel a whole lot less safe, and possibly be less safe too, and perhaps be in fear for your safety or your property, and that would make it a job of the government to do something. And yes, I do believe that hate speech does incite others to commit hate crimes. So, if you believe that people have a natural right to feel safe in their own homes, to feel safe while walking down the street, or indeed, to feel and be safe in any location in which they have a right to be in, you should also accept that there is an argument for restricting hate speech. Or indeed, for restricting many other activities that make people feel unsafe, like sending people death threats or stalking people.

So does that mean that Minerva should be above all three Altean cavs? Even though the Altean cavs have earlygame, and nobody is in any doubt that if you take earlygame into account, the cavs are indeed better than Minerva, it's just that their earlygame contributions are mutually exclusive and thus cancel each other out? So then, should Minerva be above all of them? The problem with Ross isn't that he needs to be trained: it's more that you can't really train him to a reasonable level before Chapter 11. It's tough enough to get him to level 10 once, let alone twice. And some might call it bad logic to say that Rody is a negative in earlygame, because it implies that any character that isn't "optimal" is a negative. Leonardo is the worst unit in FE10 earlygame, but he's not a negative. Lot isn't exactly great in the earlygame of FE6, but that doesn't make him a negative. Rody has prologue contributions and contributes all throughout the first eight chapters of FE12. According to Grandjackal, he's not as good as Luke, so it's worthless; not just worthless, in fact, existing over that span is a negative because we could have used someone slightly better. How does Rody being better or worse than Luke in the lategame affect whether Rody is better or worse than Minerva? Why does Minerva somehow get to take credit for Luke being a great unit? MODEDIT: you saw nothing

I'm glad that you watched it officially. I would hate for you to watch it unofficially.

Actually, Rody ties Luke in Speed at level 8 and he only loses by 1 in attack. Maybe I'm missing something, but being able to wield a Javelin is also useful. So I don't really see any justification for a tier gap between him and Luke. But that's specious logic. Training any of the Alteans will "deny" you another Altean, and none of them are that much better than each other. Should we drop all of them, because technically, any of them is easily replaceable by the others? Of course not. Even Midia can run around throwing Javelins. Or you can theoretically reclass anyone in the game to Curate. Or, as has been noted, anyone with a bow rank and a pulse can engage flying enemies. It's just that these "contributions" are so small as to be effectively worthless, that they are completely replacable, by almost anyone in the game, and aren't really worth discussing.

Well, no, it's not a personal one because it affects everyone. If all my neighbours decide to go out and buy guns, I am statistically less safe, just as I would be less safe if they failed to own fire alarms, or failed to vaccinate their children. Indeed, that is the entire concept of public safety in a nutshell, that actions you take can put other people at risk. And because that decision affects me, I have the right to influence it through the means of representative government, in the same way I can demand that everyone owns a fire alarm, or that everyone vaccinates their children. It might be nice to live in a world where people's actions didn't affect each other, where negative externalities don't exist, that people really can be rugged individuals and islands unto themselves, but we don't. Even in the UK, guns are not prohibited in "entirety", it's just that people actually have to provide a valid reason to own one. Also, I think most people would object to prohibiting knives because knives are frequently used in all sorts of daily activities. The same can't really be said of guns. Even if you live in the countryside, you probably don't go hunting every day. That is to say, the distinction between knives and guns is not an arbitrary one.

I don't know about that. I think that a truly bad story can make a game bad. For me, the proof of that is Metroid Other M. But I don't think that merely the absence of story can make the game bad.

It's ridiculous to talk about secret ways to skip past certain areas as if it's a bad thing. Were the Warp Whistles a bad thing? Was sequence breaking in Metroid "bad"? I think there needs to be less focus on trying to "control" the player and making him or her follow whatever imaginary script the developer has in mind for him or her. The developer exists to meet the needs of the player. If the player wants to do something, the developer is there to make it happen. Like an obedient manservant. And yeah, sometimes that means you should let the player come up with sneaky tricks. I remember when I played EN for the first time and I figured out how to skip 95% of the enemies in Lyn's Tale. It felt pretty damn awesome to subvert the whole chapter like that.

I'm just bemused that Americans keep on talking about "safety" and "defense", when available evidence suggests, Americans aren't very good at self-defense. I don't see myself as making snide jokes. I see myself as supplying the punchline when Americans have already provided the buildup. And... how does that make him safer? See, like I said earlier, it's fine if Americans prioritise libertarian principles or the recreational value of guns over their safety. That's their choice to make. But they shouldn't pretend like they're making themselves safer, or that these rights are for "self-defense", when evidence suggests that being able to defend yourself doesn't really make you safer (for example, men are four times more likely to be murdered than women are, even though it's perfectly apparent that women are less able to defend themselves, even before you take into account the vastly lower rates of gun ownership among women). It's more of a question between "positive freedom", the Rockwellian "freedom from fear", or a negative freedom, the Constitutional "right to bear arms".

Just as the highest rate of gun ownership in the world has brought security to America? I know that America has a proud tradition of self-reliance: that's why so many of you die every year from being shot. I think it's fine for you to want to own a gun for the purposes of recreation. But I don't think the gun will actually make you safer. At best, you are in a Prisoner's Dilemma. I definitely don't see how the increased magazine size would make you safer.

I guess, but I don't really count the mako reactors or Shinra HQ. It's more in the sense that you never really explore there. I guess there are other points, too, like when Cloud is being chased after the first mako reactor. The point is more that for such a huge city, you see very little of it, and despite that, it's very effective.

Final Fantasy 7. There's a grittiness that FF8, 9, 10, and 12 all lack. And indeed, is lacking in almost all RPGs. Midgar in particular is possibly the greatest city in any video game. Funny how that works out, since really, you don't see much of it. You only visit two out of the eight sectors, and you never see the upper plate. It's just left up to the gamer's imagination. Maybe it's better that way.

And I'm guessing you have no problem with toys that contain hazardous levels of lead either, if you're okay with a toy as obviously dangerous as a gun (which also contains a hazardous level of lead hahaha). So, would you say it's acceptable to own anything at all if it's being used for recreational purposes? You can't rent a gun? Seems like it would be cheaper.

Guns are not toys, and if people think they are, they should have no problem with the government placing restrictions on their "toys". And how, exactly will you be enjoying these bullets? It's just a toy, anyway. No need to break the bank, right?

lunatic casual only

EXP is not a resource, however, in the traditional sense. I cannot save EXP. I cannot choose not to kill those cavaliers in Chapter 2 and wait until Chapter 9 to have Minerva kill them. It's true that if Rody kills them, then other units cannot kill them. However, it is true of any unit, so I do not see how that makes Rody underperforming in earlygame. In addition, killing enemies is useful. It is not a negative, like you imply.

This is because America has this strange notion of "freedom of speech", whereby people have the inalienable right to express their beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are.

I dunno, I still feel like there's more praise for FE7. Praise for FE4 is justified, anyway, because it actually is great.

Well, it's not exactly surprising when Congress makes impossible, self-contradictory laws just to make themselves look better.

What? Mario Kart was a thing before Super Mario 64. And I'm not talking about the spin-off games like Mario Party or Mario Kart, I'm talking about the core series. In fact, I'm not even saying that Mario 64 was a bad game. But it would have been better if it were in 2D rather than 3D. Yeah, I mean, NSMB Wii only sold over 20 million fucking copies, and triggered stores running out of the Wii because customers were so eager to finally get another 2D Mario after over a decade of nothing. Who wants that? Far more important to impress video game reviewers and people on internet message boards. Money and fame? Who wants that, huh? Except that NSMB Wii did change things by making the game multiplayer. It would be smart of them to totally ignore us. According to people on this site, FE7 is the greatest Fire Emblem ever created and every other Fire Emblem should be more like it in every possible way.

I like cider. And not "real" cider either, I like the lamestream stuff. Kopparberg is my favourite, Rekorderlig and Gaymers are nice too. I used to drink Strongbow all the time because it's cheap, even if it tastes kind of awful, but I drank too much one night and now... I don't. Tried beer, never really liked it. Shame, since I have like seven bottles of Cobra in my fridge that I'm never going to drink.

"Pushing"? Let's not pretend we have some influence over IntSys' decisions.

Mario would arguably be better if it never went 3D. It's no accident that NSMB Wii outsold Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 put together. So, sometimes change is good. Sometimes it's unnecessary.

Silith specified units that are not bad but are often overlooked. It seems like every single person you named is one or the other. To note: Dorothy, Wendy, Wallace, Bastian, Lucia, Ena, Meg, Fiona, Lyre, Kysha, Gordin, Bord, Darros, Rickard, Roshea, Vyland, Bantu, Matthis, Maria, Macellan, Tomas, and FE11 Arran are all bad.