DragonMaster

No problem! Persona was actually what really introduced my to Jungian psychology, and later when we went over it in school I got so excited because I knew a little bit about it at that point. I totally agree, I love the psychological themes of the series, its a huge reason I was able to get so into the games.

Wow, yeah, I forgot about the character limit, lol, and I didn't see your reply about it until it was too late. Sorry.

http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Izanami ^Follow that link and scroll down to the Persona 4 heading if my explanation was a bit confusing.

that were separated into different beings. They all were involved in Izanami's plan, albeit Marie didn't realize it.

(which is what the fog represents) and for the truth to be forever covered. Yu and the rest of the party, however, prove to her that not all humanity desires ignorance, and after defeating her in battle she agrees to with draw. There's also something that was explained better in Golden, Izanami, Kunino-Sagiri (the boss in Nanako's dungeon), Ameno-Sagiri (the boss after beating Adachi), and Marie are all actually different aspects of one goddess Izanami-no-Mikoto that were separated in...

(Adachi, Namatame, and Yu, who represent Emptiness, Despair, and Hope), giving them the ability to enter the TV world (and giving Yu and Adachi their personas, while Namatame ended up being a different case). She then created the rumor of the midnight channel, hoping to discover the true desire of humanity by watching how the people of Inaba and those she gave power to acted in accordance to the midnight channel and their power. Ultimately, Izanami determines that humanity desires ignorance (...

without Izanami, and in anger she said she would kill 1000 humans every day, to which Izanagi replied that he would create 1500 to counter her (this part of the story is represented in the boss fight as well, Izanami's Thousand Curses attack and then the final Myriad Truth attack you use to finish her). Now, outside of the mythology and into the game, Izanami wanted to understand humanity's true desire. At the gas station she shook the hands of three new comers (Adachi, Namatame, and...

Izanami in Japanese mythology was the wife of Izanagi, and both were creation gods. I don't know the specifics, but Izanami died and went to the underworld. Izanagi went to the underworld to try to bring her back, and while he was there he wasn't supposed to look at her. He did, however, and saw that she had taken on a very different form (this is represented by her final form in her boss fight in P4). Again, I don't know the specifics, but Izanagi left the underworld without Izan...

Ah, okay, then I'll explain it to you, just give me a second to type out the response.

Play through Persona 4 and get the true ending. That will reveal the truth about him (telling you right now would be MAJOR spoilers, even just the name alone). I will say that Gas Station attendant was not Philemon, though.

I actually didn't know this detail, so thanks for telling me! I stand by the majority of what I said, though. In any event, I'm a fan of quite a few Nintendo games, so I'll probably be getting an NX eventually, whatever it is.

I mean, I feel like its pretty common knowledge that Nintendo (and I believe everyone else) begins developing their next console right after the newest one comes out. In that regard, I see nothing wrong. I do believe that they made a mistake announcing this fact, as it makes people think that the NX is coming soon and the Wii U has been written off as a failure by Nintendo. Perhaps they did it to rekindle faith in their consumers (or perhaps their stockholders, which may even be the more likely scenario). Ironically, announcing the NX so early is actually killing faith in a lot of their fans (which in turn results in threads like this) as well as providing even more fuel for the huge band of Nintendo haters. In my opinion, Nintendo's put themselves between a rock and a hard place. They're alienating the people who did purchase Wii U's, lowering faith in the company's products, and doing nothing to win those self proclaimed "hard core gamers" to their side. This generation of gaming consoles is still young, if Nintendo is going to release a new console only half way into the PS4 and XB1 life cycles, then its going to have to match their power level at the very least, and based on how long after we're likely to see PS5 and XBwhatever, the NX would benefit from beating both PS4 and XB1 in power by a fair margin. Which might not be feasible. Plus, Nintendo is really going to have to push for 3rd party (and definitely western 3rd party) support to an insane degree to get those who have turned their backs to come back.

I imported a Lucina from Japan and she works perfectly fine on our NA WiiU, so yeah, you're good.

Hmm, how to explain this... You're correct in that I was saying that, at the most basic, everything is random. It is my belief that every tiny circumstance surrounding an event causes slight changes, altering the outcome in different ways. Everything is a result of everything else. At the same time, however, with this viewpoint I must also conceded that, because humans and their actions are the catalyst for this chain of events, it is remiss to say that everything is truly random. People can, at times, act as a hive mind, and at others be utter chaos. Every society has its own laws, its own set of morals. Some have one major religion, others have many, some might even have none (either being too diluted or actually a lack of religious belief). Ultimately, people have an element of predictability to them. Most people (at least where I live) will react in horror if someone abuses a child, for example. Due to this, the random nature of life becomes more limited. It goes from "anything could come of this, or nothing" to "it will most likely be a reaction somewhat like this." Of course, there are also people who don't fit a societal mold, so they may act different from expected. So, in regards to what I've said about change: every culture (and indeed every person, but I'm talking on a bigger scale) has its own set of characteristics, beliefs, and biases. And most of the time, it proves very difficult to convince people to change such deeply ingrained aspects of their lives. Just as a random example, look at how women are treated on a culture by culture basis. There are so many battles for women's rights on so many different fronts, with varying levels of success. But, at least this is how I see it, the people fighting for women's rights are facing difficulty because the bias against women is such a long lived institution. Women have been put below men in so many cultures for so long that it is simply a part of the culture. People have lived seeing this attitude their entire lives, have learned history that held the same attitudes, and been influence in so many small and large ways that it has become a part of who they are. It gets to the point where some may have trouble seeing what is wrong with their views because it all seems so normal to them. So change becomes a very difficult thing to bring about. So people will protest and rally and give their speeches and allow their voices to be heard. You will get single people who stand above the rest and become highly influential leaders. Yet they won't just protest and fix everything. Nothing will just suddenly change if they have enough protests, give enough speeches. They have to convince the masses, as it is only with the support of the masses that a society can truly change. Now I'm finally getting back to my point (man, I'm so long winded, I'm sorry X_X). People are resistant to change when it affects beliefs and assumed truths that is deeply ingrained into their lives. They don't see anything wrong with what life is currently like, and they don't want to give it up. Thus, the most likely reaction that the proponents of change are going to get is a negative one. The only way that they'll succeed, then, is by finding the correct way to manipulate people to react differently. Knowing what to do in order to achieve that, though, is difficult, because people act either one of two ways: predictably in accordance with their culture and their beliefs, or unpredictably random. And its not enough to convince one person, they have to convince many. Sometimes it will be a leadership figure that they have to convince, who will then become a leader of their cause and be able to rally new followers. Other times they may have to convince the "normal people," who will then overthrow current public leaders and replace them with new ones sympathetic to whatever cause. Really, there's many ways it can go about. And that's not even taking into account retaliation from the opposite side, or whether either side becomes violent. There's not fate or destiny involved here, because it's all a matter of getting people to react in a certain way to further your cause. If the majority isn't liking what they're seeing, then basically it's tough luck for you. You're getting no where. Things aren't miraculously going to start bending to your will like fate has ordained they you are correct, you have to make things work by yourself. You have to create the actions in such a way that the reactions occur as you want them to. Everything is a result of everything else: so be the everything else that results in the everything you want to create (if that makes any sense). To connect this back to when I admitted you were correct that one person can change the world: one person may be what makes the difference in convincing the masses, or what inspires a movement in the first place. *deep breath* Okay, that's enough philosophy from me today, and its only 11 AM for me. I'm glad I haven't made myself look like a jerk, and I've actually enjoyed this conversation as well. You've challenged me to think about my views from new angles, which is difficult but refreshing. Thank you.

Agreeing to disagree is best, yes. I definitely believe that my philosophy will evolve as I experience more of the world. I'm only 18 after all, still pretty young. I was actually just thinking about what I wrote here a couple hours ago. I think there were some places that I definitely messed up on while writing, due to me trying to say too much on too many things at once, and your reply confirms that too me. Especially on the topic of "making a difference," I think I was a bit too extreme with how I spoke. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, I'll concede that you're correct that one person can certainly make a difference, and I really shouldn't have said otherwise. But I'll stick to my statement that "The time must be right, all the events in the chain reaction must be making a push for that one change." One person may be the final push, or perhaps even the initial push, but it will not be their efforts alone that bring change. I admitted in my post that my rather complacent attitude probably made me look like a terrible person, and that I really had no argument against that. My only justification is this: I aid my family, my friends, the strangers around me. When the opportunity comes up to directly help people, I do. You won't, however, see me at a protest, or a rally. You won't see me making speeches or marching. I'm not a fighter, nor am I a leader. I'll help someone I see in need, I'll donate my time and possessions, and I'll give money on occasion. If something were to occur, some wrong that strikes me so profoundly, then you may see join the political front. But until then, no. Judge me as you will. As to evil, I didn't mean to say that there is no such thing as an evil act, and I apologize if my first reply gave that impression. People can certainly do evil things. For instance, there was recently a man who shot and killed four marine recruiters (I think they were recruiters). I don't watch the news much (the TVs in my house are seldom used), but last I heard it was considered an act of domestic terrorism. (You've probably heard of it so I don't even know why I'm going into detail.) There is no room for debate that this man's actions were despicable, horrendous, and yes, evil. It was meaningless slaughter, unprovoked and undeserved. However, I will not call the man evil. What he did was evil, and if he is part of a terrorist organization, then his organization is evil. Terrorism itself is an undeniably evil concept. But I will not tell you the man is evil. There is so much that I don't know about him, so many inner and outer forces that influence him, that to simply say "he's evil and that's why he did this" is, in my opinion, an injustice. No one is just born as good or evil, and very few end up as a simple case of either/or. I believe in punishment for evil deeds, but I also think we should realize that we are not punishing an evil person, we are punishing a person who does evil. Well, anyway, I think I've expounded upon the details I wasn't happy with in my original post. I doubt I've changed your mind on my philosophy (which was never my intent), but I at least hope I don't look like as much of a jerk as my first post probably made me look. And as I already said, I agree to disagree. Just thought I'd offer my own views on the questions posed.

SORRY FOR THE SUPER LONG REPLY!!! It would be a bold faced lie for me to say I've faced any true hardship in my life, at least the type of hardship you're talking about. The only true suffering I've felt has been from within, torment born not from the malice of others but from the cruelty of my own mind. Self-criticism and hatred, delusion and denial, the results of a young, confused mind. Fear of the pain that others could cause proved to be far more painful than anything another human has brought upon me. Years of not having a single friend to my name, of not having the courage to speak my mind, of being afraid to just be like every other kid. And though I am now free from the mental torment I have described, I now must bear the weight of knowledge that nearly six years of my life were spent in isolation, the misery I should've felt only staved off by my powers of self-delusion, and that the only one to bear fault is myself. No external adversity ever affected me. My life has been easy, and all the elements for happiness were there. It was merely fear that kept me from it. Anyone that has been battered by the world, felt the pain of people and society pushing them down and had to struggle to stand back up, would be disgusted by my gross disuse of the gifts I've been lucky enough to have in my life. Yet today, here I sit, finally free from my pitiful state of those years now past. Though I may, perhaps, bear the scars (figuratively speaking), I am no longer trapped within the prison that was my mind. And now here I am, responding to these questions you pose, knowing that my "suffering" was far from the pain that many must live with as they struggle everyday to live. I'm one that just "goes with the flow." I don't much care what we do, so long as it can provide something to entertain my thoughts (within the confines of the law and the "morals" I hold). For me, there's no why or reason for anything. We're not born to fulfill some purpose, no day is meant to hold some significance. We assign our own meaning, our own purpose, which we must determine and define for ourselves. I find the idea that there is some written "destiny", some innate "purpose" to be restrictive and, frankly, depressing; perhaps more like a crutch to avoid the full brunt of reality (everything does not happen for a reason) than an actual belief. As I see it, everything happens as a result of everything else, as part of one long chain of events known as history. Every possible outcome is different for every possible action, nothing is meant to happen. All of us here are only us because of the precise timing of our conception, our birth, and due to the events that we experience. You might even say that we are all our own little miracles, though I assume that I assign a different definition to "miracle" than most. The chain of events continues in spite of any action we may take, and therefore most of the time I'm content to merely see where it leads. When necessary, I take actions to "make a difference" in my own life and the lives of those I'm close to. But to the scale of trying to, say, change the world? No, I don't have the motivation. To some, that may sound like a terrible reason, and I won't disagree. But at the same time, change cannot be forced. No one person's voice or action may change the world alone. The time must be right, all the events in the chain reaction must be making a push for that one change. And when the time for change comes, I'll do what I've always done, and ride the flow. The masses will determine what they want, and I shall either join them, or maintain a disconnection. You could say I'm apathetic, with little appetite for conflict. I believe we must pick and chose the miseries of others that we take on. There is so very much misery in the world, so much hatred, pain, and anguish, that to try and bear it all upon our own shoulders is to condemn ourselves to join the sea of misery. To contemplate the insurmountable amount of suffering that is experienced every day by so much of the human population is an exercise in self torture, because you can never heal it all. Choose, then, to do what you can, right in front of you, and hope that everyone does the same. Then, all those actions will influence the chain of events to change its course. As to humanity itself, it is neither good nor evil. It is an entity beyond such a label. Good and evil are mere concepts, invented by humans in order to make order out of the chaos that is the world. When we take into account all the influences on a person and all the factors that drive their actions, very rarely can anything be truly "good' or "evil." These labels are shallow, and do not hold up upon deep reflection. I will say this, though. We humans are greedy, envious creatures. But we're also intelligent, compassionate, and caring. We are especially susceptible to corruption, and I do believe that there are more corrupt people in the world than not. That does not mean that the compassionate, caring people are a rarity, it just means that the corruption is easier to see. Make of that (and everything that I've said) what you will.

This is the first one I've had to do this for. I missed the launch for Robin and Lucina, and those two plus Palutena are the only ones I want (currently). I managed to get Lucina from play-asia for decent price ($20), but Robin's still out of my reach. X_X Anyway, yeah, I would think Amazon would be better prepared for this, considering they're such a huge business and they've seen the bloodbath that is an amiibo release before...

I had to constantly refresh the page for five minutes, but I was able to get one. It's still in stock, so keep trying and it should pull through.

Managed to grab a Palutena Amiibo order on amazon! Now to just hope that nothing goes wrong with the order. X_X

I've got 5 weeks before starting college, 6 before classes actually begin. (First week is just a bunch of activities.)

Well, for me, this was entirely accurate.

I don't currently have glasses, but I'm going to the optometrist next week so that might change. They've been telling me for years "yeah, we could give you glasses, but your vision isn't bad enough that you NEED them." So I'm like, right on the edge of needing them or not. Both my parents and my brother need glasses, and nearly everyone in my extended family does as well. In fact, I may be pretty much the only one who doesn't have them at this point. X_X

K' mine's PhobicDragon (no spaces). I'll add you next time I get on my WiiU.

Ah, kay then. Just ask when you wanna play. I'll PM you my NNID if you want, so you have it.

Hmm, can WiiU and 3DS fight each other online? I only have the WiiU version... As to what time, sorry, I got off too fast to answer that. Whenever you want.