Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Yeah, I shouldn't have added the bad thing, you didn't say that. But at least you answered my question.

So apparently people just like a change of pace. Go figure.

Too much of the same thing gets stale after a while; you probably agree with this on some level. Going back to the same thing after a change of pace is also good imo.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You really don't see the difference. 😐 He did not have to kill the captain. He did so anyway, for absolutely no reason at all.

Um, yeah, after he became God of War, he declared war on it, for no reason.

Nah.

Excuse me sir, but I have played the Ninja Gaiden games at their highest difficulties, which make DMC look like easy garbage, I do not "suck" at it. I will admit the hack and slash aspects are decent, the rest is utter garbage, particularly plotline and Dante's character.

He never killed the captain the first time, not directly. He specifically stated that he was not there to rescue him. He needed the key, he took what he came for and left. The second time, the guy was trying to kick him off. The third time, well, the guy was already dead. Even if Kratos had not 'killed' him, the death of the BK likely would have.

No he didn't 😐.
a) Twas Rhodes 😛.
b) I admit, he did take a huge turn for the worse in 2, which is why I generally hate the plot shift in 2.

Yah.

DMC is easy garbage. DMC3 is not. Difficulty is one matter. However, do you truly know of the depth of DMC3's combat system?

Like I said, DMC is primarily known for it's combat aspects (which it excels in in most cases, this is definitely true for 3), not for its plot.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Not exactly though i see i didn't explain it very well.

In order to pull off an 'animalistic badass', you need to actually be badass. Meaning, no being afraid of death, no seeking power, no revenge for things, nothing that would imply you really care for others. etc.

Just look at Kenpachi and learn 😬

Also, you are confusing badass, with sociopath.

No, they are not. Semantics shemantics. Killing is wrong no matter why you do it? So if a father kills a home invader who was entering his daughter's room, armed, it was wrong? Is he evil?

Really? So you should just let you and your younger sibling, who cannot provide for themself and has done nothing wrong, die? It is called survival, in the grand scope of things it is little different than killing for food.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
*slaps* ..... you dare lie to my face..... DP, get my smelting tools!

Originally posted by EvilAngel
No, Kenpachi is badass. He's the example of how a brutal animal should be.

You can't pull off a character like that if you want goals and stuff. Kratos is trying to be something more than what he is, that's why he sucks.

Heroes was only really good imo in season 1. After that i got a little bored of it tbh.

Your definition of 'badass' is yours, mine is mine.

He's capable of attaining said heights though. Irrelevant though.

I agree. & yet I still watch the show 🙁.

~ Where are your smelting tools???

Originally posted by NemeBro
The entire third movie sucked. 😬

You suck uhuh. It's entirety did not suck. Black Spidey, however changed, was interesting to watch.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
In that scenario, it's not murder, it still ain't a good deed though. His blood's on daddy's hands forever. And yeah, if I were defending my daughter or someone similar, I'd kill the guy. But if you can stop him without actually ending his life, that's a better solution.

Steal from someone you don't have to kill.

I see I didn't explain my scenario adequately. Say you are stealing from his home, and he comes in unexpectedly, and attempts to kill you, and to save your own life so you can bring food to your sibling, you kill him.

It's true, the entire third movie did blow ass.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Murder is only worse in that it is premeditated. It is preferable to your daughter being killed or maimed sir. Why? He invaded your home, and is entering your daughter's room, his reasons are unknown, and he is armed, the most logical solution would be to incapacitate him as easily as you can, which more times than not is lethally.

I see I didn't explain my scenario adequately. Say you are stealing from his home, and he comes in unexpectedly, and attempts to kill you, and to save your own life so you can bring food to your sibling, you kill him.

The end justifies the means in this case. Self-defense and provision for a loved one. The one killed could have instead attempted to call the police or such, instead of taking matters into his own hands.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Yes, it does, while evil admittedly comes with the more obscene parts of it like rape or murder, good does not always come with compassion, in fact, in a world of true order, such things would be discarded from said world.

Why? Because everyone is so good and pure, and lacts any negative traits? Because everyone is a Gary Stu? Yeah, how about no? A world without flaw is a flawed world in of itself.

I am talking about a world of PURE good, nothing else but goodness, purity, order, whatever you call it. Due to this, everyone would be the same, there would be little to differentiate one person from another, the best thing about humanity is the fact that it HAS negative flaws, to deny this is to live in an overtly optimistic, ridiculous world.

Being flawless by itself is a flaw, in terms of speaking of people or the world.

Was joking.

Quit confusing Order with Good. Just stop it. I think you are seeing even general conflict as evil when it isn't. Right now this is a conflict, and in no way is this wrong or evil. But yeah, in a world of "true order" this would be bad.

No, it is not. Negative traits do not automatically equal excitement and fun nor do Positive traits automatically equal boring and dull. You CAN have only Good. Acts of Wrong spawn from things like uncontrollable greed or lust. It is not wrong to earn yourself a living, but stepping on people, using them and then tossing them aside is wrong. After that it just becomes a question of "I am already more wealthy than I would EVER need to be, even for everything I want. So, why do I still want more money?"

Still your scope of Good is too limited. Everyone does not have to be the same. Everyone has to be willing to accept those differences because they are there to give us something we need to learn to accept them.

Not really.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because Kenpachi totally does not care for others, right? I mean, he totally does not care for Yachiru, and his killing of the 11th Division Captain totally was not a display of a desire for power?

Also, you are confusing badass, with sociopath.

I thought about writing an arguement, but i cba.

I think you know what i mean, and that's good enough for me 😛

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Your definition of 'badass' is yours, mine is mine.

He's capable of attaining said heights though. Irrelevant though.

I agree. & yet I still watch the show 🙁.

~ Where are your smelting tools???

You suck uhuh. It's entirety did not suck. Black Spidey, however changed, was interesting to watch.

Um..... i forgot, get me yours then!

Black spidey was fun to watch because for once he didn't hold back. He wanted to kill, and so we actually saw him going all out. Who didn't find that even the tiniest bit fun to watch..... well i don't fully understand why that person watched Spiderman 3 in the first place.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I thought about writing an arguement, but i cba.

I think you know what i mean, and that's good enough for me 😛

Originally posted by NemeBro
I accept your concession. 131

Concession?

Kratos is still a Bold, bald, red, naked-ish Thing

So long as that's clear i have no quarrels

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Quit confusing Order with Good. Just stop it. I think you are seeing even general conflict as evil when it isn't. Right now this is a conflict, and in no way is this wrong or evil. But yeah, in a world of "true order" this would be bad.

No, it is not. Negative traits do not automatically equal excitement and fun nor do Positive traits automatically equal boring and dull. You CAN have only Good. Acts of Wrong spawn from things like uncontrollable greed or lust. It is not wrong to earn yourself a living, but stepping on people, using them and then tossing them aside is wrong. After that it just becomes a question of "I am already more wealthy than I would EVER need to be, even for everything I want. So, why do I still want more money?"

Still your scope of Good is too limited. Everyone does not have to be the same. Everyone has to be willing to accept those differences because they are there to give us something we need to learn to accept them.

Not really.

Just to throw this out there, without evil, good cannot exist and vice versa. How do you define what is 'good', when there is no point of reference (evil)? So yeah, a world where only 'good' exists is technically impossible to achieve. Besides, as long as human beings have free will, they will be inclined to either achieve their goals through any means. Without free will, well, we might as well as have a Communistic Utopia.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I thought about writing an arguement, but i cba.

I think you know what i mean, and that's good enough for me 😛

Um..... i forgot, get me yours then!

Black spidey was fun to watch because for once he didn't hold back. He wanted to kill, and so we actually saw him going all out. Who didn't find that even the tiniest bit fun to watch..... well i don't fully understand why that person watched Spiderman 3 in the first place.

Whaaaaaaaattt??? You asked for your tools specifically woman.

I agree, though I don't think he crossed that line.
tbh, I only watched Spiderman 3 to watch Black Spidey.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Quit confusing Order with Good. Just stop it. I think you are seeing even general conflict as evil when it isn't. Right now this is a conflict, and in no way is this wrong or evil. But yeah, in a world of "true order" this would be bad.

No, it is not. Negative traits do not automatically equal excitement and fun nor do Positive traits automatically equal boring and dull. You CAN have only Good. Acts of Wrong spawn from things like uncontrollable greed or lust. It is not wrong to earn yourself a living, but stepping on people, using them and then tossing them aside is wrong. After that it just becomes a question of "I am already more wealthy than I would EVER need to be, even for everything I want. So, why do I still want more money?"

Still your scope of Good is too limited. Everyone does not have to be the same. Everyone has to be willing to accept those differences because they are there to give us something we need to learn to accept them.

Not really.

Because that is totally what I said, right? A world dominated by only goodness, being "too good," would be boring and flawed, I am not equating every good deed or thing to being boring or dull or every negative or evil deed with fun, stop trying to paint me as some sort of horrible monster, kthx? 🙂 No, a world with only positive traits, along with being utterly and truly impossible, is much less preferable to one where the balance is mantained. Lust, greed, etc., all are not as vile as you make them out to be, there are different magnitudes of which you apply them to your life. Where did I ever say the bullshit you are spouting now? I was speaking of a very real need to do negative acts to live, not some fat corporate businessman stuffing his pockets with the broken dreams of others. estahuh

If everyone is pure good, nothing else, they will all have nearly identical values, beliefs, and their lives would be nearly exactly the same, since because they only believe in total good, they would not do a thing that could be considered at all wrong.

Ya rly.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Concession?

Kratos is still a Bold, bald, red, naked-ish Thing

So long as that's clear i have no quarrels

Agreed on the naked-ish part. droolio

I watched Spiderman 3 for Sandman.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Just to throw this out there, without evil, good cannot exist and vice versa. How do you define what is 'good', when there is no point of reference (evil)? So yeah, a world where only 'good' exists is technically impossible to achieve. Besides, as long as human beings have free will, they will be inclined to either achieve their goals through any means. Without free will, well, we might as well as have a Communistic Utopia.

Actually no. You are thinking about if the world started without Evil. Evil is already defined, getting rid of it isn't impossible. Nor is it impossible to start a world without it. Good would still be there, simply being unable to define it won't change that. In that situation, it would only be undefined because it wouldn't need to be defined.

And you're right. But that's the problem. People need to learn to use their Free Will for Good. You can't force it on them. You can just get rid of them. You have to show them and hope they understand. If they don't then its because its been part of the life.

We can get rid of all the Evil, but it'll take a very long time and the cooperation of everyone. That's what makes it such a great goal. We have to work to achieve it through means we are not used to. It will be the ultimate triumph of humanity.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Actually no. You are thinking about if the world started without Evil. Evil is already defined, getting rid of it isn't impossible. Nor is it impossible to start a world without it. Good would still be there, simply being unable to define it won't change that. In that situation, it would only be undefined because it wouldn't need to be defined.

And you're right. But that's the problem. People need to learn to use their Free Will for Good. You can't force it on them. You can just get rid of them. You have to show them and hope they understand. If they don't then its because its been part of the life.

We can get rid of all the Evil, but it'll take a very long time and the cooperation of everyone. That's what makes it such a great goal. We have to work to achieve it through means we are not used to. It will be the ultimate triumph of humanity.

This so-called "goal" is impossible, BECAUSE of free will.

That's one part where I agree with Nemebro, free will means there will never be world peace.

Originally posted by SpadeKing
DMC & GOW is basically the same thing really.

the only difference is GOW just changed characters & plot & added sex mini-games ermm

Quit comparing something really awesome to something really gay.

Blind optimism to match your wide-eyed pessimism. All you see is the negative possibilities. Stop it.

Actually this goal is possible because of Free Will. You still have all your shit backwards.