Originally posted by Violent2Dope
No one know its my birthday...🙁
That's because you suck terribly.
😄
Inerting retarded debating technique # 372:
Using someones title, name, or type as a tangible reason for winning.
Simply because someone is called a "god", "hellspawn", "devil incarnate", "ghost fiend" (This isn't directed at you, Gears super13), "ravager", "master of the arts", "angel" or any other retarded title does not give them an advantage in any way, shape, or form in a vs. fight.
I know several idiots who don't go this board eho think a character in Lord of the Rings can beat anyone or anything because the book describes him as a " god of fire and brimstone".
Stupid beyond imagining.
I belive it should be fiction VS threads i mean game characters have been debated to death in the old days we used to be able to vs anything which i much preferred. the reason i dont vist much is that most game characters have be over debated i mean how many Snake vs Chief threads do we have to see
?
Originally posted by Stalker 360
I belive it should be fiction VS threads i mean game characters have been debated to death in the old days we used to be able to vs anything which i much preferred. the reason i dont vist much is that most game characters have be over debated i mean how many Snake vs Chief threads do we have to see
?
Home > Misc > Computer / Video Games Discussion > Games 'Versus' Forum
You don't like the idea, well, no one's forcing you to come in here.
Oh for ****'s sake, how many times do we need to go through this?
This is Games VS. Thus, game characters only. If you're sick of seeing the same old characters constantly, then start threads with characters that are not constantly seen here. It's not difficult.
The rule will not be changing. It is far better with it being restricted to just game characters, and the number of complaints we'd get if it were changed would be far more than the number we've gotten about how it is now.
Originally posted by Peach
Oh for ****'s sake, how many times do we need to go through this?This is Games VS. Thus, game characters only. If you're sick of seeing the same old characters constantly, then start threads with characters that are not constantly seen here. It's not difficult.
The rule will not be changing. It is far better with it being restricted to just game characters, and the number of complaints we'd get if it were changed would be far more than the number we've gotten about how it is now.
You really should just make a little template of this and put it in your profile, because as long as new members come to the forum, and you're a Moderator, you're going to keep on being asked the same question, because it makes sense. 😛
Found my post, to bring to Lana's attention:
Originally posted by DarkC
"For the purposes of this forum, only feats seen in the actual video games are considered canon. Any other sources (movies, comics, novels, etc) are considered non-canon here."To me this doesn't make sense. Any feat officially stated by the developers to be "canon" should count, especially in a debate forum. It should be up to the companies themselves to decide what is official and what is not.
It's a useless and unproductive rule, if you think about the scenario; if someone, say, creates a Master Chief or one of the Warcraft characters vs some other character, ANY argument of mine referring to a novel canonically accepted by the company (Bungie Studios or Blizzard Entertainment, respectively) can be refuted by someone else by saying: "Nope, it's a book, not acceptable by the KMC forum rules" even though the company themselves state it as such.
Originally posted by DarkC
I know it does Blax, lol.Halo is probably the best example of why this rule should NOT be in place. Most of the abilities and feats performed by the Master Chief are in the novels, fully endorsed by Bungie. It severely cripples anyone trying to bring things he did in the books such as surviving an antitank missile and running 500m in 12s with a torn Achilles tendon.
If you ask me Street Fighter is the best example of why this rule should be in place. A lot of the "plot devices", while endorsed by Capcom, are officially non-canon (Udon comics, the anime, the movie). The thing is, most people who get into a debate involving a Street Fighter character know this anyway so it would be easily refuted. However, some of the references (while not IN the games) are perfectly viable too as canon materia, such as interview transcripts and the well-known Tiamat Street Fighter Plot Guide.
It severely hampers debaters who are trying to use an "official" feat, yet the rule limits them because it's not from in-game. It shouldn't be up to anyone but the companies themselves to decide official material that can be used as materia in discussion. It's a useless rule, what's the point debating for a character if I can't even use all his officially stated capabilities and feats as argument?
And if you think about it, it doesn't even defeat the purpose of this forum either, simply because a character originated from a video game doesn't mean that the arguments have to come from strictly the games themselves. Someone mentioned FF7:AC and that's a great example; Square Enix stated it as canon yet technically we aren't allowed to use it because - oops, it's a movie! Despite that, you see it being brought up left and right, both Sado and I made numerous references to it in the Gouki vs. Cloud thread anyways.
Completely boggles my mind as to why on Earth this rule was tacked up in the first place.