Gaizokubanou

Thanks CLWheeljack. About the bullet deal... The studio admitted they basically ditched any long term plan somewhere in the middle and wrote the rest of the series as they went along, which explains number of things (like why, IMO the quality dipped around the Osaka invasion arc) but also a pleasant surprise since IMO the series also ended up packing quite a punch from 16 and on although you can see the budget straining around the climax.

I hope this doesn't come off too gross/crude/rude so I'll put this in spoiler so only those who want to read it will read it but

Something about FLCL resonates with me personally so deeply that it is easily my #1 favorite work of fiction of all time thus far. But it is very personal so hard to say how I think it fares more objectively against other stuff. I have 2 unopened boxes of FLCL collector's edition DVD box sets, 2 complete individual dvd sets, the Bluray release, 1 set of all the soundtracks, 1 set of all the soundtracks unopened, a 2004 calendar that i never used cause I don't use calendar, 1 illustration and 1 'Groundwork of FLCL' which shows key animation frames from some parts of the series. And I probably watched FLCL from start to finish like... over 30 times? So yeah, I can't see that series with any objectivity at all.

Completely acceptable. Now I get it if some people have issues with in regards to how 'well' it was pulled off (I found pretty good arguments on where Kill La Kill have some major fails in that regard due to what they seem as unnecessary 'repeat' in what was it, 19 or 20?), and if they argue for why this or that specific work was unacceptable then ok. But I don't buy the broader argument that such things should never be attempted because that basically means let's never ever write characters with ethical behavior anything other than good. Not every R rated murder scene is component of snuff film. Some could be, but it would have to be more than "there was a gory murder". Same thing for sexual violence. Some of them could be gross appeal to rape-culture, but sexual violence alone doesn't automatically mean that.

Would love to play RE6 with VR. Leon is so hot. I would love it.

Ryuko's Japanese VA and her emotional range sold me on the 'good' interpretation of all the perverted stuff going on in that show. If they really wanted purely exploitative take on it, her VA would have sounded lot more err 'porn-y' with her overall emotion level being either embarrassed or some form of, again, 'porn-y' face. Like there is this one Marvel artist who draws every women with this same 'O' face that he got from some sort of porn and it's just... embarrassing even if they are better dressed. For specifics, take every instance of when Ryuko takes a beating. It would be so easy to take care of that with some hyper sexual moaning (which is so prevalent in anime overall) but they don't go that route. And she gets bodied a lot too so it's pretty consistent on their end. As for emote, she shows some of the best 'confident' look I have seen out of female protagonist and by far my favorite (tied with Haruhara Haruko) angry face My favorite. Bottom line is, she is few protagonist that I want to become, and those are pretty rare for me.

Oh yeah. Oops Everytime I watch footage of Xrd, I think it's just combination of really good cel-shading and having highly controlled & relatively 'stiff' animations (opposite would be 'floaty', like say poor quality flash animation or any cheap 2d sprite animation based on bones) to make it look more old school than it is. Like some motions look stiffer than say, 3rd Strike and that has to be intentional because getting 'floaty' motion (often what really kills poor 3d animation) is really easy to achieve if you try to make things look smooth.

What? Hmm I thought it was you, maybe I just completely mixed you up with someone else (someone with drunk looking BubbleBubble dino as avatar)

Kill La Kill is life. I'm still salty that Twig hated it.

Doesn't VR only ideal for first person view anyway? I mean it would be weird to play, say, Gears of War with VR. "Hey dude it really feels like I'm creeping right behind Marcus ooooo" But it could give a whole new meaning to more visceral experience. Like imagine simple but high fidelity bird simulator with VR. The feels man. The feels (yes, I recently had dream about flight and it was awesome).

Here in New Jersey those two are one and the same, where expired license is same as not having one, but prosecutors just waive those away (recently got ticketed for no license, no registration and using private property to avoid traffic light and the first two got waived in court) if expiration wasn't that long ago and you got it renewed before the court meeting. I wonder if it's different in that state to allow such bonkerous charges or did those guys just didn't give a damn about the laws they were charging the person with?

So my assumptions on the speakers is probably correct. Cool. I think Riot's effort certainly seems great for games and good on them (well I'm sure they are doing this for profit but still) for pursuing this. But I wonder how much of what's learned here can be tweaked for other mediums? Like, 'banning' people from social network is a pretty huge deal and has more political dangers associated with it (as much as I dislike getting called 'gook' for example, any method used to ban it broadly (more than say, a game) has way too many far more damning usage that I would rather hear deal with the slur than the alternative) compared to getting banned on LoL. And if the system was automated (I assume to large degree that it is automated to handle the number of reports) it would be really difficult to prevent bigotry driven banning attempts. I forget which service it was... maybe it was Youtube (lol) that had this function of hiding (not deleting) comments with lot of negative/spam reports but still giving you option of seeing it... whole lot safer than banning but would it be as effective? Also I think Youtube no longer has that feature for whatever the reason.

So reading the GDC tweets, Soren live tweeted an interesting revelation for me... it was about League of Legends' community management talk I think, and the speaker (Lin?) stated (I suppose with healthy amount of evidence, I assume the speaker works with Riot and has all the information needed to come to this conclusion properly) that muting players actually encouraged the muted player to act out worse, and it required more clear condemnation for better odds at reforming behavior. I mean I suppose on some level this is super basic and I should have expected it (incentive to reform improves odd of reforming). And I still worry about condemnation mutating into its own abuse (which is also certainly nothing new given history), but still, controlled and managed punishment (I never played LoL, so I'm assuming that its report system isn't a good platform to dish out your own abuse) certainly seem to prove itself to improve online behavior. If the data is correctly interpreted (and I assume they are), this certainly proves my previous notion about pursing better blocking tool INSTEAD of trying to reform abusers very wrong. Here is the tweet BTW. https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/573605647469563904

Oh man they made a new one? I saw old one from like 1990s or something with Korean dub.

Talking about Japanese culture, it's super weird to me how the trope of "the honorable Japanese warrior" shit came to be... like I get that the trope comes from surface level importation of Samurai class and Bushido mixed with glorification of Japanese culture by anime fans. But any glance at actual history makes it clear that Samurais as active warrior class were one of the most treacherous assholes in history. It's interesting when overtly comedic game like "Skull of the Shogun" gets that feel better than so many other modern fictions (The Blacklist cough cough).

What if the game was rogue-like, or to quote NL, "YOLOGAME"?!? But otherwise (those games are not the norm) certainly, most effective means of communication is something within the game's system. Death can come into play for powerful moment once all that's done, but certainly not as a one-off. Hah, that could be great if weaven into a game that deals with stuff like that, notably I think "Sometimes, Always, Monsters" is a good example of a game that can carry out such mechanic without coming off as cheap attempt for trying to get a figurative gold star from feminism or devs getting trolled into oblivion for coming off as sexist themselves. More broadly though, I would like to emphasize Twig and Spenny's points, that just because you have a character that's of different skin color doesn't mean your game has to make some political statement about that person's skin color... It really depends on your game. If your game is relatively historically grounded (say WWII shooter) and serious in tone (not BF Heroes), sure, being a non-white-male should be an issue and not addressing it would be a problem... but if a game takes place in some pure fantasy lands or distant future, trying to shoehorn (because it can be done well, but again, the world needs to be explained and built well) in modern racism and culture into those distant world personally annoys me to no end, it's like the creator just decided to fuck off with creativity. Ultimately, best you can do is writing a character that makes sense as a person (flawed or heroic) given the context.

Nailed it, also unless your goal is explicitly widening your own view, you are most likely to end up in an echo chamber in some way anyways. Like this community is very echo-chamber-like, and I don't mean that in a bad way (usually 'echo-chamber' is used to denote that something is bit mindless but no I don't think like-minded people automatically become mindless... they just become mindful in specific ways) either. Just that when you have people voluntarily joining up social group with zero entry-exit cost, well, you are going to go with people you like more (AKA, ppl who you agree with). I don't know if you guys have seen those particular tweets about how if the person gets X number of retweets (usually over 100k), they were promised to get something (free A in a class) and those get like... absurdly high number of retweets. My point is, tweeter is for entertainment or fast notification that links to something more elaborately stated. So please don't get too boiled up with twitter drama.

Talking about others is such a fun pasttime that I doubt it'll ever stop, and I think it's cool so long as it stays as small talks. Seriously, gossiping is amazing. But please just don't take it too far, keep it verbal and keep it relatively private.

This game is good.

Yep, if your game is fast enough, a super simple mechanic that is layered in timing context can do wonders. @Rxanadu Another thing you could explain to us is exactly what the enemies are doing to you as a player... defense is all about lessening the oncoming attacks, so it would help to know exactly what kinds of attacks are heading towards the player. And there are many ways to deal with projectiles. You mentioned a shield that protects player... protect how? Does the projectile disappear? Does it slow down the projectile? Does it reflect the projectile? These might sound like lame 'minor alterations' but if game is hectic enough (twin stick shooters ought to be, slow ones are often really dull) this is all pretty critical and layer them in with more abilities and it's even more important. Like you said you weren't too impressed with possibility of adding invisibility cause it's too similar to decoy... if your game has AOE abilities and melee enemies, decoy can be significantly more useful to bunch them up for easy killing. Or if enemies shoot in such wide pattern that even with decoy you are in danger of getting hit by strays... maybe invisibility would turn the ai 'off', again completely different. Regardless, all this is just too speculative without knowing more details about the rest of the game, like how entities in the game moves and attacks. Edit: Maybe I came off too aggressive, so I'll try to do something more constructive by sharing examples of why specifics matter a lot when I 'announce' my game in progress here in few days instead of just being a hardass.

From my relatively nonchalant bystander's viewpoint, that's how EVERYONE in these topics look like But I suppose that's inevitable when these people's livelihood are built on words.

Then of course the corporate entities will do something else, whether that is neutral or bad or good in some other ways. And then the struggle goes on. As for needing proper resources to achieve profit angle, that applies to everything so I don't see that as a specific problem to this method. Remember every struggle came to be because there were enough people who thought it was worth supporting, and every successful one came to be because even more people thought it was right. People like MLK or Ghandi weren't widely recognized as the hero we recall them to be because they were so righteous... they became heroes in majority's mind because the struggle was won through popular (majority) movement over long time--these civil rights or any other ethical movements achieved success because they convinced enough people with enough resources that their cause was worth supporting. Same with market angle, except with the market it just seems more cruel because the resource game is clear to everyone.

Prepare yourself for the 50+ hp bosses.

Thanks for the thumbs up Bjorn, much appreciated. I agree that's completely fair and needed cynicism, just that I think we both kinda flew each other's points because my whole point was based on assumption that the purchasing decision in question is already determined to fund what is net positively good. So it isn't that I think buying new Thor comic IS good, but rather, IF it is good, then why be sad about it.

Right, deceptive appearance is not good but on other hand, that's not the specificity that I am seeing here. I'm just witness flat out revulsion against the thought of guiding these "for-profit" entity into doing better via our spending power (please note I don't have any delusion about 'changing them' into good... I am being very specific here, coaxing them into 'doing' good for the moment (moment in historical sense)). Like, I don't think anyone here would give second thought on validity of boycotting of company that is morally abhorrent (or to some of you, comparatively more abhorrent)... but the thought of spending money for opposite effect seem to scare people and I ask why when I see them as functionally identical? Or to put more theoretical spin on it, why isn't it desirable to shape the society so that doing good is easier? In fact, I think that's a must to have functionally healthy and ethically good society. If good can only be done via at a profit loss, then logically all net positive good do-ers will go extinct because they are not sustainable entity. We should strive to make flourishing and doing goods synonymous as possible (without changing definition of 'good').