Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter
Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HeartlessAqua

  1. I'm expecting a decent amount of people here to rush to the rescue of their favorite game, but as much as I love KH, the fact does remain that their depiction of Disney characters is usually, but far from always, lackluster. Personally I don't mind, because these characters are mostly side characters, so treating them as NPCs sort of can't be helped. And since lots of people know their Disney movies, these characters don't really have to be introduced and fleshed out as deeply as they are in their films. But with that in mind, I DO think the Disney side of KH grows steadily more and more irrelevant to the plot with each game. In KH1 and CoM, there's at least some attempt to make most worlds relevant, often thematically more than anything, but still. This is an adventure series after all. Starting with KH2 however, the Disney worlds have become very bland, almost dull, retellings of the movies. Even the second world visits in KH2 don't stand out much except as extra quests or hurried continuations of the previous visits, even when Org. XIII is involved. That's not to say they're all done badly, or that they don't have their merits, but I would be surprised if someone told me that the watered down retelling of Aladdin 2 was really any good except as an arena for fun gameplay. BBS and 3D do this slightly better in some ways but slightly worse in others. I think reducing the Disney worlds to phoned-in backgrounds for the main characters' tragic stageplays feels kinda awkward. In the end, I think KH is a great series, and technically it is obviously a Disney game, but it isn't great at representing Disney in recent years. I'll even risk riling up the more spirited fans by saying I think the representation of Disney is pretty bad in KH, aside from the optimism which is integral to KH as well as Disney movies as a whole. Hopefully KH3 remedies this however, which the trailers seem to promise.
  2. Aqua Wearing Minnie Mouse ears I love how she has such a serious look on her face even while wearing it.
  3. Parents don't exist in the world of Kingdom Hearts. They're myths and legends like Nessie and Sasquatch.
  4. I personally think resurrection is okay, but it has to feel earned. If a character is brought back to life solely to please people, then I'd probably find it lame and uninteresting. I don't like it when stories pander to audiences at every opportunity. Even if a story is needlessly spiteful, I will prefer that over a story which does exactly what the audience wants with no sense of logic, creativity, or art. But if a character comes back to life in an emotionally and dramatically satisfying way, maybe especially if the story was trying to lead up to that point and the characters fighting for it, then I could enjoy it and even love it. Depends. Though I don't have much trust in Kingdom Hearts because sometimes it can be emotionally powerful, and other times it just feels like a very by the numbers fanfiction. Kingdom Hearts is a fun as hell video game. And as a video game, it should indeed focus primarily on gameplay over story. But since it does spend a lot of time on story, I can say that Kingdom Hearts' story is kind of a hit and miss in quality, so resurrections may be either glorious or ridiculous.
  5. The problem with that is that Disney movies feature lots of permanent deaths. Bambi's mom died, Mufasa died, Kerchek died, Tiana's father died, an entire village in Mulan was slaughtered, at least one side kick died (the bug from Princess and the Frog), and many villains died. Pinocchio himself died, and only came back to life because he accomplished the goal he promised to do. Disney is filled with permanent deaths. So when Kingdom Hearts shows that death is meaningless, it cheapens a lot of the thrill and danger.
  6. Well in that case, you are correct. The world is made a certain way as proven by science, and anyone arguing against that would need some pretty fantastic evidence. I was under the impression that this was the debate over whether or not religion was viable.
  7. It's simple. There's a world outside of us. Earth as is defined by pure hard science. A big mass of rocks and stuff orbiting around a big ball of gas. There is no God or magical force guiding the universe. The universe is just what it is. No good, no bad, no nothing but the things as they are. However, every human being sees the world differently. Human minds are limited by biological components, true, but human minds are still quite vast and variable. What makes one person happy and healthy might not appeal to another person. Might even disgust them, like how Christians might find Aztec ceremonies wicked and evil while the Aztecs themselves saw them as glorious. So many people are obsessed with cold hard facts, but they forget or even dismiss the importance of each individual human psyche, which can function in a variety of ways. Religion is one of those ways, and religion has produced plenty of good in this world.
  8. Precisely. There is a world outside of us and a world inside of us, and both those worlds are valid. Simple psychology.
  9. What many people argue is whether or not religion is bad, or if it has any place in this world. I am not religious, but I argue that religion does have a place in this world because on an inward, psychological level, it can be very healthy to some individuals. Look at the Haitians. They practice Voudou. Would it be wise for a person to go to a Voudou ceremony and tell them that what they're doing is wrong? What's the point? What would that accomplish? Basically, that person would be trying to destroy a culture which has so far been living the way it wants to without harming others. And religion is more than just stories. Religion encompasses ethics and philosophy. Ethics and philosophy, whether fueled by a big man in the sky or by rationalism, can be good useful tools. I enjoy reading the works of Carl Jung and Nicholas Roerich (please tell me someone has heard of at least one of them), and they are rational, good men who see the strong points of religion and discuss in depth how religion can be a healthy, and sometimes even necessary, expression of the mind. People are so obsessed with cold hard logic that they forget that there's a more complicated emotional world inside all of us, and all of these inner worlds (our psyches) require different things, and there are different ways to gain those different things, whether through religion, spiritualism, rationalism, etc.
  10. Note that I said religion in general isn't supposed to coddle you (nor is it usually supposed to be used as a way to manipulate others). I said that many Christians don't understand their own religion and often simplify it to "God will do good things for me and punish everyone I don't like". But that is not what religion these days is supposed to be about. I thought I made that clear. Religion has LOTS of cases of assholes using it for their own selfishness, but it also has lots of examples of people trying to become better or good people. The only reason you and many other people focus solely on the bad side is because that's the part of religion which gets all the coverage. What do you think people will talk about more? Terrorist acts which make the news? Or the theological essays of an old scholar from Europe? Do you know anything about Buddhism? Because that's a religion which basically demands you to strengthen yourself.
  11. Interestingly enough, God isn't supposed to be a miracle worker. Christians who treat God like he's this guy who will do everything for them are kinda missing the point of their own religion. In regards to the horrible world thing, religion isn't that simple. At least, ideally it shouldn't be that simple. Certain Christians today might treat their religion that way, as a mere comfort, but for more serious people, religion does not exist to merely comfort and coddle them. Religions aren't supposed to hold people's hands and tell them everything is fine. Religions are supposed to push people to become better, or to at least follow virtuous laws. Just look at Buddhism. There's no coddling here.
  12. I cannot stress this enough. This is a great, intelligent answer. You can be a stubborn fool and tell everyone how they should live, but in the end that decision is up to every individual. You can have a dozen people in the room, and each one can see the world completely differently. As long as they don't harm or bother others, it shouldn't matter what they think.
  13. First of all, way to simplify an incredibly complex debate. Many scientists are religious and many religious people believe in science to differing extents. And second of all, science may be the key to understanding life itself as it really is, but not everyone really needs to know that. What good will it do me if you explain to me how particles work? Nothing. Nothing at all. Because I don't deal with particles on such a deep, intimate level. Sometimes what's important is understanding yourself on a psychological level, which can also be achieved through pure rational science, but can also be achieved inwardly by religious or spiritual practice or mindsets.
  14. Yes and no. Yes, it's pointless because no matter how hard or how brilliantly you argue, very few people are actually going to change their views. Religious people can have a conviction which is so strong that even when shown evidence against their beliefs, they will either deny it or they will find a creative way to integrate it into their beliefs. And people who uphold pure rationalism usually won't give religion much of a chance in the first place because religion is by definition irrational. No, it isn't pointless because you can still potentially expand other people's understanding of science or religion through arguing, whether positively or negatively. And in the case of science/rationalism, sometimes, just sometimes, you NEED to argue or fight against irrational things because they can be detrimental to others. One thing I want to make clear is that science and religion don't always oppose each other. It seems that a lot of people think that this science vs religion debate is some kind of black and white war, but it's not. Religion and science and their conflict can be incredibly wide and varied and ambiguous. There are many scientists who believe in a particular religion, there are many religious people who also believe in modern science to varying extents, and there are many atheists or anti-theists who practice a religion of some kind. (Atheism means you don't believe in gods, but an atheist can still practice a religion which has no gods, like branches of Buddhism or Hinduism) In the end, I think it's less science vs religion and more rationalism vs irrationality. There are people who think the world is or should be a certain way, and because of this they take issue with people who think very differently. As a whole I think rationalism is the better side, because it doesn't base things strictly on belief or faith in what can't be seen, but the whole debate is really gray. Sometimes arguing against religion can be good, especially in cases where people brainwash children or leaders manipulate the masses and promote very unhealthy habits. But sometimes arguing against religion is pointless because religion isn't always harmful and sometimes it can be very personally, spiritually, psychologically fulfilling. Let's say you go meet with a primitive village somewhere. This village believes that the sun is their father and the earth is their mother and that dreams are visits from the spirit world. You can explain to them that the sun is a ball of gas, that the earth is an inhuman mass of minerals, and that dreams are just expressions of the mind, but in the end it won't matter, because these people were fine just the way they were, and can't use what you taught them in any practical way. I do agree that too many people spend more time fighting than making things better. Many of the louder religious people are angry or power-hungry morons, and some of them don't even believe in their own religion and purposely use it to manipulate people. And all over the internet you'll find people who might uphold science but themselves do absolutely nothing that contributes to society. My uncle is a big science guy, but he spends his days drunk, drugged up, and homophobic to the point of saying he wants to kill all gay people. But in the end, human beings will always be this way, so there's no point in complaining about it. All you can do is accept that human beings will always naturally be in conflict, because conflict is only natural, and that you can still try to be a good person regardless.
  15. Honestly, BBS is the worst game in the series when it comes to characterization and dialogue. BBS can establish relationships and show us some character/narrative development, but it can't flesh them out or make them feel all that real. The problem isn't that they don't spend enough onscreen time together. I think they spend plenty of time together. The problem is that whenever they are on the same screen, their interactions are so robotic and awkwardly-written, and created solely for the sake of moving the plot, so you don't get much out of it. At best, they act like high school kids in a badly-written play. At worst, they act like machines which are programmed to think of each other as friends without really understanding friendship as a real human would. The only characters who really felt natural and lively were the three villains, MX, Vanitas, and Braig. I guess it's because villains are always in the know and are allowed to do things more awesomely and charismatically than heroes typically. Aqua sometimes generates realistic feelings and a sense of true love though. She can be surprisingly, realistically emotive during more dramatic moments. I guess because she was written to be like a mom. But everyone else in this game, including the Disney movie characters, talk and behave in ways which would confound a human being in real life. Very little life and logic. Just a lot of strange script-reading.
  16. This topic, in general all around the world, wouldn't even have to exist if more people just educated themselves and learned what the word and concept of karma actually means. A quick Google search revealed like a ton of information on the concept and definition of karma, which is not what a lot of people think it is.
  17. Well, the way most people think of karma isn't even how karma actually works in Hinduism, the religion which the concept came from.Karma doesn't mean "do good things and good things happen to you." Karma is more complex and varied than that. In fact, I'm not even knowledgeable enough on the subject to explain it with conviction.But to the best of my understanding, actual karma is the sum of all the deeds you've committed, and how it affects not just your current life but future lives as well. The simplest example I know of with certainty is that if you live in a way which is wrong, you could be punished in the next life. You might be reborn as a lowly animal, or you might be cursed in your next life and have to endure all kinds of hardships. You won't remember your previous life, and you may even be a good person in this life, but I've read Japanese folktales about how decent people are still punished for wrongful things they did in a life they didn't even remember.But philosophically and psychologically, I've even seen karma explained as being simply how your past actions shape who you are today, and how you use it/deal with it.But again, I'm no expert on Hindu or Buddhist concepts. This is just what I understand.EDIT:Turns out, karma can be defined even more simply, and perhaps this is the ultimate definition. Karma can simply mean cause/effect. No cosmic law, no retribution, no reward. It's simply you do something, and it can cause something else to happen. You didn't move a table out of the way, so one day you stub your toe on it on accident. Stuff like that. It's fair in the simplest and most unbiased way possible.
  18. I'm the kind of person who can respect another person's opinion, but still view them as wrong. I do not believe in bullshit like "It's my opinion and anyone can think what they want because there's no objective facts". Some things are totally subjective, like personal taste (We can all like what we want to like), but some things can be measured by a certain standard. A movie can be a bad movie. Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2 is a totally bad movie. It tries to do so many complex things and it tries to portray some honestly interesting ideas, but due to issues with production, the writers ended up creating a very confused mess. For instance, the writers TRIED to make it a movie about "nature=good, technology=bad", but the writing was so jumbled and confused that that message wasn't even clear. The movie feels more like an aimless series of events with no meaning, and so when the climax came along, I felt almost no care whatsoever for anything that was going on. Hell, the writing was so jumbled that I didn't even understand certain parts. I'm not saying you're wrong concerning personal taste. You can enjoy movies for whatever reasons you want to. You can even enjoy movies that are generally considered bad. And if you believe a movie that is considered bad is actually good, more power to you. What I cannot agree with is your belief that these movie "rules" are dumb or unnecessary. All movies, even very lowbrow entertainment, must be designed with care, effort, imagination, organization, and intelligence. The only exceptions I can think of are very artsy experimental films which purposely try to do things in a radical way. Otherwise, if a movie is lacking in these qualities, then this will often result in a movie that feels rushed, or nonsensical, or even downright lazy or careless. I will agree with one thing though. I HATE when people say stories HAVE to follow a certain formula. I HATE when people say "This character HAS to have lots of development" or "This story HAS to be deep and meaningful". I especially hate it when the people saying these are themselves very amateurish writers, as if they somehow have authority over what is universally good and bad. My belief is that movies, and stories in general, can come in a wide variety. They don't have to follow a strict formula, and they shouldn't. Otherwise, they'll all feel like assembly line productions, rather than free-flowing works of art. Not every character has to be deep. Not ever scene has to be loaded with philosophic messages. Not every movie has to be serious. Son of Godzilla is such a campy film with such simplistic characters and ideas, but it is still a solid film in which the creators knew what they were doing and thought things out. A movie should do what it NEEDS to do in order to achieve maximum entertainment value, or maximum emotional value, or whatnot. Every movie has its own unique needs. And in case anyone gets smug and says something like "I don't care" or "You're wasting your time, you're not changing my mind", let me just say right now that I don't CARE. I don't care if you disagree with me. I don't care if you won't change your mind. I'm not writing this post to change anyone's mind. I don't give two shits about what you people think of my post. I'm typing this to express my own beliefs on the subject, which interested me.
  19. People really found the maze-like areas in the first game frustrating? I found them fun. Not great, but fun enough. It actually felt like I was exploring the worlds and using careful thinking to make my way through. I hate it when a world is mostly just small areas and long halls filled with enemies. It's boring, it's monotonous. At least when it's done too much, like in a variety of worlds in KH2 and BBS. I think a challenging maze can make games more fun, and the frustration a nice part of the experience. Shin Megami Tensei games are all about frustrating mazes, and they REVEL in frustrating the player and really challenging them. Heck, the mazes in KH1 weren't even all that challenging. The only slightly annoying parts I can think of are the camera angles and a few wonky button commands when you needed to do something special. If polished better, then I think mazes would do wonders for KH3. Not that I am asking for mazes. I don't care one or way or another, as long as the gameplay itself is fun. And it looks like KH3 might have some very fun, expansive worlds that are open for exploration and atmosphere. Still, if there were mazes, I'd welcome it.
  20. I think random NPCs during gameplay are unnecessary and might take away time and effort that could be put into developing more useful things for the games. However, they would not necessarily ruin the games if they were included. As many people say, they would breathe some life into worlds which are supposed to be populated but look more like lifeless limbos. I personally don't mind lifeless limbos too much, in fact they give KH a weird neat style, but I can see the appeal in a few wandering NPCs in safe areas. The movies have plenty of "NPCs" anyway, in the form of incidental or background characters. KH does not need more NPCs, but if it did use more it could easily use some of those nameless figures. At the very least, I would not mind simplistic models or sprites used to represent crowds in scenes that are clearly supposed to have crowds. Cinderella's ball was ridiculous! And keep in mind that Traverse Town had plenty of NPCs in the first district, which I thought was nice. Really made the town feel like a place full of people, rather than some kind of creepy Disney version of Silent Hill. Not necessary, but very welcome.
  22. Man, either it would be ridiculously gory or very awkward, seeing a realistic bandicoot or bandicoot-human hybrid exploding and leaving behind his eyeballs.
  23. Ultimately, it depends on the game. Design style IS important, because it captures the tone/atmosphere/spirit of the game or story in an immediate visual way. If a game works best with a cartoon style (I presume that means a game which has notably exaggerated designs like you'd expect in a kids' animated movie or comic strip), then go with it. If a game works best with a more realistic design style, like Call of Duty, then go with that. Kingdom Hearts kinda needs a cartoony style due to the fact it features Disney characters and animesque Square Enix characters all over the place. Though I will admit it would be interesting to see a game that's very cartoony in spirit but has realistic-looking settings and characters, and vice versa.
  24. Very epic action and smooth animation! Oh and, won.
  • Create New...