Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter
Jump to content
  • Sign Up

HeartlessAqua

Member
  • Content Count

    39
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Alpha Baymax in Why I think KH isn't a good DISNEY game.   
    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. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from GothicSlenderman in Why I think KH isn't a good DISNEY game.   
    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.
  3. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from FerroAxel7 in Why I think KH isn't a good DISNEY game.   
    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.
  4. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to GothicSlenderman in Why I think KH isn't a good DISNEY game.   
    Note how I made Disney in all capitals? Well that's because I love the Kingdom Hearts franchise. It's fun, I want to see how the story ends, but I've recently been asking myself: how much respect does this franchise give to the original films? As of late, I've began to realize that KH isn't a good DISNEY game. But still a great franchise.
     
    This is mainly because of the emotion these Disney films give us. Disney Films often feature a zany sense of humor, some fear and heart gripping moments. While some of that can be seen in some worlds, it's almost absent in the rest. A lot of the Disney characters often do the same thing.
     
    1. Introduce who they are.
    2. Ask Sora for his help
    3. Explain the plot in the most basic way possible
    4. Thank him for his help
     
    The Disney characters feel more like NPC's then their actual selves.
     
    I'd be fine with that but it's basically the same for every world and also they lack the same emotion that's seen in their original films.
     
    I'm sorry if this upsets anyone but I really think that the Disney worlds should be given more attention to and their characters. Because to me, what's the point in having these characters if they're not going to act like the characters who we remember them as?
  5. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to Wan_Pisu in What's your favorite accessory for Aqua in Kingdom Hearts 0.2?   
    Meow name is Meowster Aqua and that's a promise!
  6. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to Heavens Fang in Fan Art of Aqua   
    This is another fan-art of Aqua but this time it is a full-body sketch of her. Feel free to comment if you wish. 

  7. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to Awesome Sauce in Wouldnt Kairi's Parents be worried about her?   
    Her parents care as much as Sora does for his dinner, which is next to nothing.
  8. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Elfdemon_ in Death Is Meaningless In Kingdom Hearts   
    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.
  9. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to Dave in Death Is Meaningless In Kingdom Hearts   
    Death doesn't stay permanent because they keep beating up Hades, so he can't do his job and make sure all of the souls stay where they are.
     
    If we don't want people to come back, we should stop beating up the God of the Dead.
  10. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Dio Brando in Death Is Meaningless In Kingdom Hearts   
    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.
  11. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from MythrilMagician in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  12. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from 2 quid is good in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  13. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from 2 quid is good in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from khsg in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  15. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Dave in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  16. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Alpha Baymax in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  17. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Alpha Baymax in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  18. Like
    HeartlessAqua reacted to Alpha Baymax in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    This isn't a debate between science and religion, rather, religion versus postmodernism. Religion is firmly rooted in set beliefs whilst postmodernism is all about adapting to an ever-changing world. Understanding which is the better way of living is more of the case of the individual. As a collective, we cannot dictate what's better for humanity because the concept of humanity is humans living in harmony. Humans cannot live in harmony and achieve world peace because of clashing ideals.
  19. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from The 13th Kenpachi in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  20. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from The 13th Kenpachi in Is the Religion vs Science Debate Pointless?   
    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.
  21. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Master Eraqus in Rant: My Personal Thoughts on The 'Laws' of Making a Good Story   
    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.
  22. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Trece the Xam ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) in Please no maze like areas in KH3   
    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.
  23. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from lehahiah81 in Please no maze like areas in KH3   
    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.
  24. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Trece the Xam ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) in How much do you care about Cartoony graphics in a video game?   
    Man, either it would be ridiculously gory or very awkward, seeing a realistic bandicoot or bandicoot-human hybrid exploding and leaving behind his eyeballs.
  25. Like
    HeartlessAqua got a reaction from Trece the Xam ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) in How much do you care about Cartoony graphics in a video game?   
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...