I didn't realize that dandelions were yellow flowers as well as the white, poofy flowers you can blow the petals off of.
ViciousAnchovy's forum posts
@conantheking: I got a urinary tract infection a couple times when I was younger, which basically caused the same problem. But, what's worse is that the infection a second time, I had to get examined, and the examination just happened to involve getting a catheter stuck up my urethra. That was painful enough, but then I had to pee in it as well. Sorry if that was too much detail. But, yeah, I know your pain.
@giantstalker: The article didn't say he did this to teach them what fighting a war was like; it said he wanted them to understand life was like for people living in war zones and how not all actions soldiers take correspond with people in a given society.
Edit: I see someone already mentioned this to you. I'll leave this comment as evidence that I jumped the gun.
I prefer Dark Souls II, and I understand most of the problems people have with it, but what I don't understand is why so many people think it feels slow compared to the first game. Only a few actions are slower, like the Estus recovery speed, the speed at which you raise your shield, and the shield bash speed. Pretty much everything else is faster. You get up to full speed more quickly, you attack more quickly, you even fat roll more quickly. I can see how what is slower can put people of, and I can get why someone wouldn't care for the increased speed in other areas, but I just don't get how people can feel like the game is slower overall.
@belegorm: Well, if you want to know some more about it, (shameless plug alert!) I actually just posted my review of the PSP version today. The other user reviews are good as well. To sum things up, there's a whole lot of dialog in the game. NPCs will say something new after every side quest and plot point, which really fleshes out the world, and the writing for the main character and the plot is no less impressive. The battle system is also fun and snappy even though it doesn't do anything groundbreaking.
I'll add that I didn't have any technical issues with the PSP version aside from some the sprite at the tail end of the party getting some weird lines on it for a few seconds every now and then when entering a room. Also, while it is on sale on Steam right now, you'd only be saving $3, so price probably shouldn't be your deciding factor on which version t get.
This was decent enough, but I wish it hadn't cut off as abruptly as it did. They set up the world nicely, but it felt like there was going to be more exploration and side quests, and then bam, it's over. And yeah, I get that they did a lot of that in the sequel, but I'm getting tired of piecemeal games with unclear release schedules.
I do see where you're coming from a bit when you mention abruptness, given that the last chapter only has a couple side quests in favor of bringing a bunch of plot points to a head, but I never felt like anything was forced. And, I know a lot of things were set up for the sequel, but it wasn't like there was a cliffhanger ending; the main arc came to a clear resolution. I can certainly understand the frustration of not having a definite release date for sequels though.
I'm ridiculously proud of my sense of balance, even though I don't typically do things that would make anyone fall over.
I beat The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky, and I'm working on reviewing it now. It's JRPG with copious amounts of well-executed dialogue and snappy, if somewhat simplistic gameplay. It's great.
@random45: Holmes definitely chose unnecessarily callous words to describe fans of Melee, but I find it hard to believe that this was conceived of as click bait, given the detail he put in to describing why he preferred Brawl. And, even though he apparently was wrong about tripping being a major factor in why a defensive playstyle is more effective in Brawl than in Melee, that doesn't change the fact that the games do indeed play differently.
As for Wagar's response, I appreciated learning about what exactly accounted for the differences in Brawl, but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of objectivity. The words "good" and "bad" and "better" and "worse" are inherently subjective, no matter how many arguments you can posit. You can say there is greater landing lag in Brawl, and you'd be correct. That's an objective statement; all it does is describe something, explain what it is. You can say that Melee is better than Brawl, and that's something you can believe, but that value statement is, once again, inherently subjective. And, while it certainly would be helpful if games journalists spent a greater deal of time and effort understanding the intricacies of mechanically complex games so as to better explain what players can do, I find it hard to fault the games press in general for reviews that speak only of the more basic mechanics in games that don't require you to pull off anything incredibly complex in order to complete the main body of the game.
And, with regard to your statements about media outlets always writing opinion pieces about controversial topics, you should understand that controversy is the reason for editorials in the first place. It's easy to become frustrated with such pieces when their authors make some kind of attack on a particular audience -- which, I agree was the case here -- but the whole point of editorials is for members of the press to share their views as a means to foster discussion and so that their audience knows where the author is coming from. For example, now that you know Holmes doesn't have a certain degree of knowledge regarding fighting games, you can know how much stock to put in his opinion on other such games, should you decide to read them. Holmes even gave several reasons for what he believes makes game exciting, and it's possible for readers to take that knowledge when reading his other work and think about how that might affect his opinion.