Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

looks pretty cool.

Originally posted by Peach
As it's me, probably not.

This is what I bought. Wasn't exactly planning on getting a laptop but my lack of patience won out.

Nice, like the umbrella and water effect on the front.

Which reminds me I need to look for a good tower (and maybe a monitor) myself.

My random c/p art, from LoZ2. <_< I will now use this on these forums to highlight anytime someone else has failed, epicly.

http://kotaku.com/5205385/gamestop-sells-played-games-as-new-sources-say-practice-could-be-illegal

Worst part is, its true.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
My random c/p art, from LoZ2. <_< I will now use this on these forums to highlight anytime someone else has failed, epicly.

No, I don't think you will.

Originally posted by Nactous
http://kotaku.com/5205385/gamestop-sells-played-games-as-new-sources-say-practice-could-be-illegal

Worst part is, its true.

Any store manager that lets people check out new games is a damn idiot. It's as simple as that.

oh, GS the hammer is coming.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
My random c/p art, from LoZ2. <_< I will now use this on these forums to highlight anytime someone else has failed, epicly.

Why noooot? D:

@TGE, it's amusing to people who've played the game. =P didn't you claim you had?

it's been tested on a cross-section of Zelda players. The only ones immune to lulz were the new guys who enjoy the cell-shaded look introduced in WW.

It's not that.

It's just that I don't like shitty humor.

There is no reference to fecal matter of any sort in that image. 😐

there needs to be a historical vs forum.

Knight vs Samurai <--this debate has SO many misconceptions everywhere I see it that it angers me..

1. The Samurai is faster because he worse less armour. FALSE. European plate armour was infact much less restricting than Feudal Japanese banded armour, which sat with all it's weight on the shoulders. Western chain mail was also less restrictive, because the rings allowed for a wide range of movement Japanese armours did not.

2. Katana can cut through armour. FALSE. Self explanatory.

3. The Samurai is somehow way more skilled. FALSE. They both had comparable skills, but if anything the Samurai was a specialist designed to fight other Samurai, and the knight's constant fighting in tournaments and travelling abroad made him a more versatile fighter.

4. The Knight couldn't move in his armour, or would get tired. FALSE. See point 1, Knights coudl infact perform some acrobatics in their armour, which was designed to allow them to jump on and off of a horse, run, somersault, ect. some men could even SWIM in it.

5. Unarmed the Knight gets destroyed. FALSE. Medieval europe had unarmed martial arts which actually predate their Eastern counterparts. Some Judo throws, for instance, existed earlier in Gaul. Knights were trained in unarmed combat as well, and their armour even augmented for it. Plate gauntlets often had knuckle dusters built in, and spikes on the knees/elbows/feet.

/rant.

I do have to laugh at common culture's worship of the katana. Folded a thousands times over or not, that thing would still snap in half as soon as it met good European steel.

Agreed, it takes training to learn to cut bamboo without chipping the blade, let alone hardened plate, designed to deflect blades.

Also, folding a Katana more than 30 or so times is utterly pointless.. Foldign it a thousand times would only serve to make you seem like you suffer from OCD... and the whole reason the metal was folded, to begin with, is to help compensate for the incredibly poor quality of the iron ore found in Japan.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I do have to laugh at common culture's worship of the katana. Folded a thousands times over or not, that thing would still snap in half as soon as it met good European steel.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
seriously? they fold a damn sword a thousand times and it still sucks? lol.

Katana's had a very fine bevel and were designed for a draw cut or slicing motion, because samurai always fought other Samurai. Samurai wore armour made of wood and leather, with silk underneath... Against plate or chain armour, it'd be a curved steel stick, not too useful.

It's just a case of trying to drive a nail with a screw driver, wrong tool for the job. [It probably doesn't help that Japanese steel is poor quality to begin with, necesitating the folding.]

Edit: also, the blade of a Katana is hardened so much as to be brittle, if it ever met another piece of steel, it'd snap, or chip. Good quality steel, like that in a good European sword, has flex. It's called spring steel for a reason. 😛 [Carbon spring steel].

Edit again: Can I open a Knight vs Samurai thread? 😛

so the katana is only good when someone stupid enough trys to fight someone with one while wearing crappy armor?

The iron in Japan was rare and poor enough in quality that Samurai fought each other wearing oiled leather armour, sometimes with with bamboo plates, and they wore a silk undercoat. The Katana killed other Samurai well enough, it'd just be poor against a Knight.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
so the katana is only good when someone stupid enough trys to fight someone with one while wearing crappy armor?

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
there needs to be a historical vs forum.

Knight vs Samurai <--this debate has SO many misconceptions everywhere I see it that it angers me..

1. The Samurai is faster because he worse less armour. FALSE. European plate armour was infact much less restricting than Feudal Japanese banded armour, which sat with all it's weight on the shoulders. Western chain mail was also less restrictive, because the rings allowed for a wide range of movement Japanese armours did not.

2. Katana can cut through armour. FALSE. Self explanatory.

3. The Samurai is somehow way more skilled. FALSE. They both had comparable skills, but if anything the Samurai was a specialist designed to fight other Samurai, and the knight's constant fighting in tournaments and travelling abroad made him a more versatile fighter.

4. The Knight couldn't move in his armour, or would get tired. FALSE. See point 1, Knights coudl infact perform some acrobatics in their armour, which was designed to allow them to jump on and off of a horse, run, somersault, ect. some men could even SWIM in it.

5. Unarmed the Knight gets destroyed. FALSE. Medieval europe had unarmed martial arts which actually predate their Eastern counterparts. Some Judo throws, for instance, existed earlier in Gaul. Knights were trained in unarmed combat as well, and their armour even augmented for it. Plate gauntlets often had knuckle dusters built in, and spikes on the knees/elbows/feet.

/rant.

Such a good rant

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
The iron in Japan was rare and poor enough in quality that Samurai fought each other wearing oiled leather armour, sometimes with with bamboo plates, and they wore a silk undercoat. The Katana killed other Samurai well enough, it'd just be poor against a Knight.