I'm not sure if you saw my reply in the Intcheck thread, so I'm going to repost it here.
I may be interested in that last male slot. I would like a little bit clearer of an idea on what the 'genisis game' and our supposed goal/s is/are, as right now all I can gather is 'we're something special to do with the ghost/demon apocalypse', which is pretty vague :/ Especially which of my plethora of character ideas (or basic theme) I go with will be influenced by that.
Also- *raises hand for high-five for another Nodiatus class user*
Nevis Member
The Aether Swordsman
- Last Seen: 2 yrs ago
- Joined: 11 yrs ago
- Posts: 299 (0.08 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Nevis 11 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
Pretty much everything I've heard and seen of Dark Souls 2 is actually worse than the first-the pvp especially.
For FF-I myself don't like turn-based games, or pretty much any FF game even besides that. So, eh.
For FF-I myself don't like turn-based games, or pretty much any FF game even besides that. So, eh.
In
Genesis Game: Chapter One: The Beginning of the End: Reattempt #ILostCount
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: Advanced Interest Checks
I may be interested in that last male slot. I would like a little bit clearer of an idea on what the 'genisis game' and our supposed goal/s is/are, as right now all I can gather is 'we're something special to do with the ghost/demon apocalypse', which is pretty vague :/ Especially which of my plethora of character ideas (or basic theme) I go with will be influenced by that.
Also- *raises hand for high-five for another Nodiatus class user*
Also- *raises hand for high-five for another Nodiatus class user*
I play Dark Souls 1 on the PS3, if that's anywhere near close enough to matter. ._.
In terms of setups (for Dark Souls), are you talking about equipment, stats, or both?
In terms of setups (for Dark Souls), are you talking about equipment, stats, or both?
Heeere you go, written by an ex-game maker. On the note of movies-Hollywood has been doing that for decades at least. A lot of serious writers actually dread having their books turned into movies out of fear of what Hollywood will do to it (dear god).
On this note-I actually play and own very few video games now. I had actually quit video games altogether a year or two ago for several months (after completing Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma). A while later, I rented Skyrim and later Kingdoms of Alamur: Reckoning. After renting those two games (which I DESPISE on a plethora of levels), I actually soon came back into games (Dark Souls, mainly) after it drove home just how amazing some of them were-sometimes just for not engaging in such crap.
On the note of 'originality', though-being the first doesn't really matter. Plenty of the best stories (and games) there have been weren't because anything new; plenty of them used entirely already-done elements. The focus wasn't on 'being original', which always results in just producing a poser product; it was on making the piece good, whether it was the first or not besides. Even t he very word 'original' doesn't mean 'the first'; it means 'from/of the origin', from inspiration, true, authentic.
As for Twilight-interestingly, Robert Patterson, the guy who acted as Edward, detests the series. He actually intentionally portrayed Edward as both arrogant and pathetic; really, go read his comments on it.
On this note-I actually play and own very few video games now. I had actually quit video games altogether a year or two ago for several months (after completing Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma). A while later, I rented Skyrim and later Kingdoms of Alamur: Reckoning. After renting those two games (which I DESPISE on a plethora of levels), I actually soon came back into games (Dark Souls, mainly) after it drove home just how amazing some of them were-sometimes just for not engaging in such crap.
On the note of 'originality', though-being the first doesn't really matter. Plenty of the best stories (and games) there have been weren't because anything new; plenty of them used entirely already-done elements. The focus wasn't on 'being original', which always results in just producing a poser product; it was on making the piece good, whether it was the first or not besides. Even t he very word 'original' doesn't mean 'the first'; it means 'from/of the origin', from inspiration, true, authentic.
As for Twilight-interestingly, Robert Patterson, the guy who acted as Edward, detests the series. He actually intentionally portrayed Edward as both arrogant and pathetic; really, go read his comments on it.
In
Six High Straight (A Wild Card realisticly superpowered Casual/Adv. RPG)
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: General Interest Checks
Aside from occasional typos (common enough in my long posts), I always use proper grammar in basically everything except chatrooms or specifically to invoke memes and such. So.
Well... that's a bit grey and depends on the metaphysical nature of the setting (which I don't know about). I am pointing out that the greek term for mind and soul, pscho/psyche, and the root of the very word psychic are one in the same. Basically, the mind and/or consciousness bear an innate connection (if they aren't a part of) the soul. The particulars really depend on the metaphysics present.
As for his abilities and what soul/ether is-ether, in myth, tends to vary between being like air or energy; different places have claimed lightning as a form of it, or it as the air of the divine realm, or as an ambient nonphysical energy-the stars were thought by some to be focused and intense ether. It's a bit grey and insubstantial by nature.
His ether-form in particular has a sense of vapor-ishness to it, like a cloud or mist, whereas his 'sword' is more like something between light and lightning and is more like 'energy' in traits. Part of that, though, is that it sort of doesn't fully exist as a physical object; it's literally immaterial and can only indirectly affect other ether/soul matter.
As for the sword-he technically can't even manifest that on his own. He carries an old, actual sword handle with long since broken blade that he focuses his own energy through and makes a replacement with. And, while this is really the greatest focus of his particular power (the ether form and floating are really weak supplementary abilities to it), it is the only form it can take-or rather, vibration. He can't alter the nature of his soul to do anything other than 'tazer'; only extend it outward, and in a pretty simple shape (a double-edged one-handed sword blade).
Regarding his growth, more an extension of his basic theme rather than new abilities-like how an animal will expand on basic traits as they grow up. There will be two distinct areas of it, like childhood and adulthood, one a bit of a base, the other basically 'completing' it. His powers, essentially, start as extremely basic ether abilities with the default grey-white color and a ghost/cloud-like feel. Later they will get colored by his own individual traits and character, becoming red and taking on a more fierce and somewhat dragon theme rather than ghost-no additional abilities, though, basically just more/stronger energy, and thematic sense (well, unless you're planning on actually implementing dragons. I'm not sure how that will turn out :/).
Well... that's a bit grey and depends on the metaphysical nature of the setting (which I don't know about). I am pointing out that the greek term for mind and soul, pscho/psyche, and the root of the very word psychic are one in the same. Basically, the mind and/or consciousness bear an innate connection (if they aren't a part of) the soul. The particulars really depend on the metaphysics present.
As for his abilities and what soul/ether is-ether, in myth, tends to vary between being like air or energy; different places have claimed lightning as a form of it, or it as the air of the divine realm, or as an ambient nonphysical energy-the stars were thought by some to be focused and intense ether. It's a bit grey and insubstantial by nature.
His ether-form in particular has a sense of vapor-ishness to it, like a cloud or mist, whereas his 'sword' is more like something between light and lightning and is more like 'energy' in traits. Part of that, though, is that it sort of doesn't fully exist as a physical object; it's literally immaterial and can only indirectly affect other ether/soul matter.
As for the sword-he technically can't even manifest that on his own. He carries an old, actual sword handle with long since broken blade that he focuses his own energy through and makes a replacement with. And, while this is really the greatest focus of his particular power (the ether form and floating are really weak supplementary abilities to it), it is the only form it can take-or rather, vibration. He can't alter the nature of his soul to do anything other than 'tazer'; only extend it outward, and in a pretty simple shape (a double-edged one-handed sword blade).
Regarding his growth, more an extension of his basic theme rather than new abilities-like how an animal will expand on basic traits as they grow up. There will be two distinct areas of it, like childhood and adulthood, one a bit of a base, the other basically 'completing' it. His powers, essentially, start as extremely basic ether abilities with the default grey-white color and a ghost/cloud-like feel. Later they will get colored by his own individual traits and character, becoming red and taking on a more fierce and somewhat dragon theme rather than ghost-no additional abilities, though, basically just more/stronger energy, and thematic sense (well, unless you're planning on actually implementing dragons. I'm not sure how that will turn out :/).
In
Cleansed: Peace Keepers (Post-zombie apocalypse/recovering population/urban exploration/survival)
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: Advanced Interest Checks
I'm not completely sure. I don't like the generic zombie apocalypse played completely straight; it's easy to have variations in it that can make it something that very much appeals to me, though. The whole 'rebuilding' thing is certainly different as it focuses on something entirely different than the (usually) dumb survival horror and/or mass slaughter. I was thinking of waiting to see more of how you present this based on other potential player's responses. I'll think a bit more about it, though.
In
Cleansed: Peace Keepers (Post-zombie apocalypse/recovering population/urban exploration/survival)
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: Advanced Interest Checks
Interested, though not committing. I'll watch and see what how this goes for a few days.
In
"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: Off-Topic Discussion
It's just that the way you wrote it sounded like it was an attack on males.
Another thing to bring up is why video games have traditionally been a male thing, even when games were made for supposedly girly things (like Barbies). Part of has to do with what males tend to be interested in as compared to what females tend to be interested in. There was a study done by some college (I can't link you to it; I went over the 3rd party article quite briefly) that recorded the language used by men and women (in the US, I think) and compared the two sets. Men, generally, by their choice of words, seemed to focus on things and ideas, whereas women focused on people-and this is quite telling, if one hadn't already realized this from experience. Males tend to focus and care more about the ideas of things; the painter who's obsessed with his work itself, the carpenter focused on his project, the civil servant focused on equality. Females tend to focus on connecting with others-they're extremely social, frequently get into things to connect or interact with other people more than for the medium itself.
Why this is relevant to the supposed 'intrusion' of girl gamers is that video games, until recently, were pretty much all single player or hyper competitive, which tends to be more of a male thing. There wasn't much (perceived) connection to be had, and thus is just wasn't a medium that generally appealed to females. Today, though, how many games are multiplayer-or can at least be turned into a social connection via conventions, videos and the internet? Quite a few, meaning that they're becoming more appealing to females (again, in general). This can also lead, though, to a loss of the very setting or style that the males who popularized and have quite loyal thus far (and have made a safe haven of/in) these mediums, which, from their point of view, is a bit like stealing land from an already poor neighbor.
Another thing to bring up is why video games have traditionally been a male thing, even when games were made for supposedly girly things (like Barbies). Part of has to do with what males tend to be interested in as compared to what females tend to be interested in. There was a study done by some college (I can't link you to it; I went over the 3rd party article quite briefly) that recorded the language used by men and women (in the US, I think) and compared the two sets. Men, generally, by their choice of words, seemed to focus on things and ideas, whereas women focused on people-and this is quite telling, if one hadn't already realized this from experience. Males tend to focus and care more about the ideas of things; the painter who's obsessed with his work itself, the carpenter focused on his project, the civil servant focused on equality. Females tend to focus on connecting with others-they're extremely social, frequently get into things to connect or interact with other people more than for the medium itself.
Why this is relevant to the supposed 'intrusion' of girl gamers is that video games, until recently, were pretty much all single player or hyper competitive, which tends to be more of a male thing. There wasn't much (perceived) connection to be had, and thus is just wasn't a medium that generally appealed to females. Today, though, how many games are multiplayer-or can at least be turned into a social connection via conventions, videos and the internet? Quite a few, meaning that they're becoming more appealing to females (again, in general). This can also lead, though, to a loss of the very setting or style that the males who popularized and have quite loyal thus far (and have made a safe haven of/in) these mediums, which, from their point of view, is a bit like stealing land from an already poor neighbor.
In
"You're a Fake Geek!" and Sexism among Geeks/Nerds/Etc (us)
→
11 yrs ago
Forum: Off-Topic Discussion
Hunter of Shadows said
No it's not, it's a statement of fact, 'in general' refers to the fact that lots of men in this world are sexist irrespective of whether or not they're geeks or whatever
No more than women are.
Also, Dark Souls (1) is my favorite video game to date.
© 2007-2024