World's Worst Man

Well yes, but the general complaint about battles in RPGs are their supposedly tedious nature, rather then whether they're random or avoidable. I just tend to say random battles as a catch-all term for RPG battles. But even if the battles are avoidable, you usually need to fight semi-frequently or else you get smoked by the next boss. And there's another "fun" facet of old RPGs that has thankfully been put to bed by most modern developers - Artificially driving up the length of a game by requiring the player to grind for hours in order to deal with certain bosses.

Sometimes the swearing is so ridiculous and over the top that it's funny. Also, he should start doing the hard parts of games that aren't actually bad games. It could be entertaining.

That's ok, I don't take seriously anything you, or people of your ilk say about game quality. Here are your Schrute Bucks, DrVenkman. That Silver Surfer video is the best angry nerd review I've seen.

Arguments that like are awful, and quite frankly hilarious. Chrono Trigger's gameplay is grossly inferior to almost every RPG I can think of that came after it. If anything, it's modern RPGs that have taken the creative bankruptcy of old RPGs and made the genre something better. The only argument that Chrono Trigger is an all time great RPG is nostalgia, and that argument isn't even worth being mocked. Well, either that, or some people just don't mind tedious random battles where you use your non-customizable characters by selecting attack, or one of their three to four skills every turn. And this was what most old RPGs were in a nut shell, outside of the very, very few great ones, like Final Fantasy VI. But wait, that doesn't make sense, since the small, vocal minority that the nostalgists make up are constantly bitching and moaning about random battles in modern RPGs, while praising stuff like Chrono Trigger that is actually more tedious and lacking in variety. So I guess it really is just nostalgia. That nostalgia, it gets some people to believe such funny things.

Oh motherfucker. I really hope Accardo doesn't fall apart and go back to being a 5.00 ERA pitcher.

It is greatly upsetting to me that I'm not even a blip on gary floyd's radar. May Jupiter smite you and yours. *throws a resin bag grenade*

Black Lagoon, Black Heaven, Black Mail

Yea, that definitely wasn't it. I was playing the NES version. Little Mac is channeling Super Macho Man in that version.

I don't remember exactly, but I seem to remember it being fairly identical to the NES version. Perhaps it was on cash grab setting, knowing that the game was many years old by that point, and easily beatable by those who knew how to play.

Different sects of Christianity believe in different things. Sects who believe in the trinity (most of them) believe God to be one person who exists simultaneously in three forms. The nontrinitarians (Mormons and Jemima's Witnesses ) believe that three forms of God are separate and distinct, and some sects (Arians for example) don't believe Jesus actually is a form of God. I don't know about this specifically, but the false idols commandment was likely just a jab towards Paganism, which probably would have been the dominant religion around the time Exodus was written. Simple intolerance towards another faith is all.

You should include the Punch Out arcade game that cut you off after two fights and asked you put more money in. I remember playing one of those as a kid, on a trip to Atlanta, and being pissed off that after beating the Kaiser, it told me I had to put in more money to continue. I could have easily gotten to the last boss on $0.25 or $0.50, whatever the cost of a single play was, but no. No!

They acted on inarguable and unequivocal statements in the bible. They weren't making anything up. But enough with the bible "interpretation". The point is, Jesus' teachings seem to be in conflict with God the Father's teachings. Who is more worthy of heaven, the person who follows more of Jesus' teachings, or more of his father's teachings? Arians (if they existed anymore) would say the latter.

The bible is so conflicted that it wouldn't be difficult to act the opposite of how Jesus taught while still following a large portion of the book. That pesky old testament. For example would you consider Pedro Arbues or Pope Pius IX to have been following the word of God? Incidentally, the Roman Catholic Church seems to think so, considering the former was canonized and the latter beatified. I would personally say they were both very un-Christian, despite what they themselves believed of their actions.

The important part bolded. Whether free will exists isn't really the argument. The point is, if God knows all, does he not know who will be good and evil ahead of time? And if so, why does he not just eliminate those who are evil and be done with it? One answer would be that you really can't have good without evil to counterbalance it, or else you end up with everybody stuck outside the Piggly Wiggly saying "No no no, you go first!". My question is this: Can one not argue that due to the necessity of evil to have good exist, isn't it possible that everyone, good and bad, is in God's divine plan and thus worthy of Heaven regardless? Valid issues. When one starts throwing around the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, free will, compassion, etc, it leaves the door open for such problems. It all points to the inherent logical unsoundness of mainstream theism. And assuming a theist would accept those logical flaws and change their definition of God accordingly, I go back to the Epicurus quote - if God is neither omnipotent nor benevolent, why call him God?

You're not understanding the concept of omniscience. Knowing is different than guessing or assuming. You might think you know that hes coming into work, but you really don't. Knowing would mean you would be right about the outcome if the situation was repeated an infinite number of times. Suffice to say, you would not be right in every scenario. In any case, my argument stands.

Omniscience entails that there is no free will, because all of our choices would be pre-determined. If something knows all of our choices before we've made them, the we don't really have free will. It might be the illusion of free will, but that's not really the same thing. So God is either not omniscient and by extension, omnipotent, or humans don't have free will.

If God is omniscient (which would be a by-product of omnipotence, although Christians tend to attribute it separately), free will doesn't exist and he knew evil would result in his actions. That would make him malevolent.

Religion isn't inherently violent or intolerant, but Christianity and Islam sure are. And while most people have wised up and ignored that content, the fact of the matter is that religious intolerance is a central, recurring theme in the bible. You could correctly say that most modern followers of the religion don't believe, or at least don't act on those teachings, but that's not really relevant to the point at all. The point is that the only thing of substance that the Christian faith is based off of contains large amounts of content that has to be ignored in order to live in a civilized society. Knowing that, I can come to my own conclusion on the nature and credibility of the bible, and by extension, the whole faith. Here's some logic - "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he's not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he's malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

How much is he making? If it's less than oh, 5.75 million, we'll give you McCabe for him.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/08/todays-k...-account-banne/ Brilliant. Pure fucking brilliance.

He'll give up 8 ER over 1 1/3 IP, so you're all set.

1. DDR 2. DDR 3. DDR 4. DDR 5. DDR 6. DDR 7. DDR 8. DDR 9. Beatmania 10. Virtua Fighter 5, to throw a bone to those who have good taste.

Halo's importance is overrated. The GTA and Gran Turismo series are both bigger sellers. And while GTA is multi-platform now, GT is not.

Er, well, if you calculate his stats for 82 games last year, he was on pace for 27 goals, so I don't think it's a matter of talent. As I said, if he plays a full schedule, he can be a 25-30 goal man. But that's a big if at this point.

You too huh?