Jump to content

Hello, Hi, Hey: I'm $$$ richh


Recommended Posts

People believe in a lot of stupid shit to be frank. Doesn't mean I have to digest it. Some even believe that the world is flat.

Gods have to be that way, to not be contradicting themselves. If a god were to live on this planet, he'd have to show himself. Because if he doesn't, he's no freaking god. Everyone can claim to be one without backing it up. And if a god were truly to show himself, there wouldn't be so many atheists anymore, and the world would change tremendously. And since it didn't, I can safely conclude that no god exists here. It is a fallact to believe in a god resembling your won species, because that is no god. And no nonsensical belief changes that.

Yes, but problem is still the underlying gameplay. Yes, you can fight in two or three now, yes, you can battle in the sky now, but it is still the same game. Little creatures whacking each other with the same gameplay, with minor changes to it. Call of dut introduced battles against zombies. Yes, it is slightly different, but nothing trul revolutionizing. Fire Emblem suffers from the same problems. Or at least, waifu emblem. If I hadn't played it first, I wouldn't have liked it most likely, due to the gameplay not offering anything truly new, anything breathtaking. Battles in three interested me for a bunch of hours, then I got bored of them because they are still the same, with a small change added to not make it completely repetitive.

I really don't see anything extremely notable about the new games

Invisibility powers?

There is clearly no arguing with you.

Just note that every series has to have a unchanging core, otherwise people will be complaining it isn't a real part of the series.

Just look at how a lot of Zelda fans treat Zelda II. It doesn't play enough like the first game and every Zelda after, so people consider it an outcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 493.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Starman

    60032

  • Kinumi

    38629

  • Lance Masayoshi

    26279

  • Soledai

    25884

>.< Hai hai sir

Also, Glac, what are inverse battles exactly? Haven't played gen 6, so I wouldn't know. Maybe that would change my opinion on gen 6 at least, as it would be the most revolutionary one

It's a battle format where type matchups are swapped.

In game, there is exactly one place to fight them.

But there still manages to be a meta for it, since it promotes previously 'bad' typings and demotes previously 'good' ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Nebraska is mine. Hmm, it seems that these last conquests have followed a pattern. So the US pours most of their forces to invade on one half of the border (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas), this leaves the other half of my forces to start invading the northern states and face off much lesser resistance, allowing me to ramp up my war-score while the rest fight. It's proven to be very effective, I now dub thee, the "Distraction Defense" strategy. Now to wait until my next target: Missouri...

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invisibility powers?

There is clearly no arguing with you.

Just note that every series has to have a unchanging core, otherwise people will be complaining it isn't a real part of the series.

Just look at how a lot of Zelda fans treat Zelda II. It doesn't play enough like the first game and every Zelda after, so people consider it an outcast.

Then why would a god come out to battle with the world's inhabitants? Gods don't have emotions. That's another fallacy. Arceus appearing is bs. Also, I can even say a flying spaghetti monster is flying around and it is invisible, and you can't disprove that. Doesn't mean it exists

Not everything has to change, but there have to be more significant changes. As said, Final Fantasy doesn't have the same battle system each game. But you know what connects every game? Every FF game is an rpg where you use entire parties to slay enemies, and in some you can use espers, summoned creatures, to battle. Whereas in FFVII your weapons had magic imbedded in them, and you had to switch out constantly, and train it, in FFXII you had a license board where you receieved permission to use a magic, but that one you could use eternally and you wouldn't have to switch out due to lack of space. In FFVII you had to control every party memeber yourself, whereas FFXII had a system wher you carefully selected different actions for each character to follow constantly.

There is a core, but the gameplay in each game varies so much that at least the first 10 games were all fun and interesting. And Pokemon isn't

Edited by Battora
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why would a god come out to battle with the world's inhabitants? Gods don't have emotions. That's another fallacy. Arceus appearing is bs. Also, I can even say a flying spaghetti monster is flying around and it is invisible, and you can't disprove that. Doesn't mean it exists

Not everything has to change, but there have to be more significant changes. As said, Final Fantasy doesn't have the same battle system each game. But you know what connects every game? Every FF game is an rpg where you use entire parties to slay enemies, and in some you can use espers, summoned creatures, to battle. Whereas in FFVII your weapons had magic imbedded in them, and you had to switch out constantly, and train it, in FFXII you had a license board where you receieved permission to use a magic, but that one you could use eternally and you wouldn't have to switch out due to lack of space. In FFVII you had to control every party memeber yourself, whereas FFXII had a system wher you carefully selected different actions for each character to follow constantly.

There is a core, but the gameplay in each game varies so much that at least the first 10 games were all fun and interesting. And Pokemon isn't

I'm not saying it exists, I'm just saying that gods being physical is just as likely as the gods you describe. I'm saying the definition of god is not limited to what you think it is.

(Which in my mind, is ridiculously low).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it exists, I'm just saying that gods being physical is just as likely as the gods you describe. I'm saying the definition of god is not limited to what you think it is.

(Which in my mind, is ridiculously low).

Not at all. In fact, god at least as a concept has to exist. However the world came into exsitance, the cause for that would be god, be it a science law or some sort of entity. In some way, the world did come into existence, such is true.

However, assuming that god walks around on this world is simply stupid to believe, as it makes no sense. There is no reason whatsoever for him to be here, and simply by putting a god in this world, he'd lose the status of a god.

I'm defining god how he has to be defined, how he makes actual sense. Again, I don't care about what people believe unless there is some logic behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. In fact, god at least as a concept has to exist. However the world came into exsitance, the cause for that would be god, be it a science law or some sort of entity. In some way, the world did come into existence, such is true.

However, assuming that god walks around on this world is simply stupid to believe, as it makes no sense. There is no reason whatsoever for him to be here, and simply by putting a god in this world, he'd lose the status of a god.

I'm defining god how he has to be defined, how he makes actual sense. Again, I don't care about what people believe unless there is some logic behind it.

The entire reason I'm bothering to debate something so illogical as a god existing at all is that you seem convinced that a being that defies logic by existing has to follow logic.

However the world came into exsitance, the cause for that would be god, be it a science law or some sort of entity. In some way, the world did come into existence, such is true.

Now you're being self contradictory. You said you didn't believe in gods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like talking philosophy tho :/. Some may have variance in opinions, but the mere exposure to a different viewpoint can lead to something new.

Ya know. Kinda like a meeting of the minds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...