But Square Enix did Announce a New Kingdom Hearts Game

Square Enix has announced Kingdom Hearts II.8: Final Chapter Prologue for PlayStation 4.

The title follows the company's model of releasing three titles in the Kingdom Hearts franchise in one compilation.

Kingdom Hearts II.8 will contain a HD remaster of Dream Drop Distance, along with scenes from Unchained X called Back Cover, set to tell the tale of the Foretellers and revealing new parts of the series' history. The final part of the collection is Birth by Sleep 0.2 - A Fragmentary Passage -, which is a completely new part of the story taking place after the events of the original Birth by Sleep, told from the perspective of Aqua.

The first official trailer for the game will arrive on September 17.

Such an announcement was teased last week when something called Kingdom Hearts 2.9 seemed to leak. Apparently we were wrong about the name, but as speculated this newly-announced game will indeed directly lead right into the events of Kingdom Hearts III. Sadly we're still waiting on a version of first games for PS4 - such a thing has certainly been teased before.

During Disney's recent D23 Expo in North America, we learned Kingdom Hearts 3 will feature a world based on the 2014 film Big Hero 6.

Some Images:





And for those interested, this was the original trailer for BBSv2 when it was the secret trailer, and rumored to have been a stand-alone game

Remind me again, why do people support this guy?

Question in the title is pretty straight forward: Is society generally afraid of sexuality/sex/etc?

Disclosure: The topic and examples for this thread came from this video, and I'm curious as to what you all think:



Going to use Miley Cyrus as an example (Cause who doesn't love a celebrity as a debate example) - throughout her recent remolding of her image, plenty of people have screamed about how her image is not friendly for children, how she is no longer a decent role model, blah blah blah.

At the same time, we have Taylor Swift winning awards for videos featuring weaponry and fights, and almost everyone enjoys a movie about violence - to the point that we seem to glorify that, over a movie where there may be nudity (Heaven forbid...)

I dunno, I'm tired and probably rambling, but just curious as to your thoughts?

Hillary is the definition of a partisan. I really can't imagine her doing anything else but maintaining the status quo.

A more moderate candidate has a much stronger chance of working with the opposing side than, say, someone who is far-left equivalent of Cruz.

You must agree to at least that.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 14, 2015, 08:57:31 PM

Pending it being a Trump/Cruz GOP ticket, I'll likely actually vote for them next year, because Sanders as President is going to be a fucking disaster.

I wouldn't go that far.

I'd throw my vote away to the Libertarians if Trump were on the ballot for the GOP.

Came off as poorly worded.

Unless it is a Trump and/or Cruz GOP ticket, I will likely vote for them this year. Hopefully it's Kasich, maybe even Carson if he keeps his religious views out of the front and center.

I still support Clinton, however, until the opposite side weeds out and we get a better idea of who is honestly going to be running in the generals.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 14, 2015, 08:39:33 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 14, 2015, 08:31:25 PM

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 14, 2015, 08:29:44 PM

I think he's referring to partisans.

Then it's a fucking stupid thing to say. Of course partisan Republicans don't vote Democrat.

Otherwise they wouldn't be partisan.

The problem in America (Not sure how it's fairing for you Brits) is that the partisan divide has simply expanded in American politics - to the point that even the Supreme Court is getting involved in this. Of course there are voters who will always vote Republican and Democratic, but the more that happens, the more the moderate and independent voters matter in an election.

They will increasingly decide the outcome, the more that the 40-42% of Republicans vote as such, and vice versa for the Democrats.

Quote from: Kupo on September 14, 2015, 08:24:21 PM

GOPers don't vote Democrat anyway, so that point is moot. Likewise, Democrats will vote for their candidate because Sanders would be better than any Republican president (plus, he's Jewish, so he fulfills that silly little 'minority candidate' requirement). There's still over a year before the election day, so Bernie has plenty of time to motivate the base. And when looking at Bernie's actual views, he's not as much of a 'socialist' as the name would imply.

I do not even know where to begin.

First off, the notion that "GOPers don't vote Democratic", while seems nice, is false. In every elections, Presidential or Midterm, there is a good average of 5-10% of the opposing party who votes for your candidate (IE, Democrats who vote for McCain and Republicans for Obama). These moderate voters, along with the independent voters, can have a huge impact in terms of the final outcome of any election.

In 2008, when Obama won in a landslide, he garnished 9% of votes from Republican voters, up from 4% for Kerry in 2004, according to the Pew Research Organization. A poll by The Economist showed even more support for Obama by Republicans, winning 22% of conservative affiliated voters, a higher proportion than any Democratic candidate since 1980, source.

Second off, the claim that Bernie's views are not "as socialist as the name implies" is even more bullshit - the guy calls himself a socialist, and his views are more align with European liberals than any other Presidential candidate in this race, or the past five elections. Not only does the guy not mention a single bit of foreign policy on his website outside of Iran (Sorry Syria, you and the migrant crisis aren't fucking important),

Instead, Bernie touts big ideas such as "Invest 1 trillion in spending against income equality, infrastructure, etc." with no set plan on how to get that money besides "More taxes!", and doubling the minimum wage in a span of three years after his election, with no plan laid out as to how that will affect the average business that isn't a god damn Wal-Mart. Even if I support an increase, I don't support such a radical one as quick.

There's also the lovely part of politicizing the Supreme Court even more, but I won't get into that.

The fact is that as many fairy tale promises that Bernie Sanders will promise, he can guarantee absolute ZERO of it, because the President Does Not Make The Laws. He is going to have to work with Congress to get anything done, which will more than likely remain, at the very least, half controlled by the Republicans. And guess what? They will go for none of this shit.

Bernie Sanders as President is going to only continue the lame-duck Presidency that has shown how broken our government system still is. If you want that, it's kind of sad.

Icy, Hillary is an establishment Democrat. She isn't even that liberal to begin with. She's been behind the times on the issues that matter most to liberals; Bernie's the actual progressive candidate who more closely reflects the current views of the party. I never claimed that the President makes laws, either; Hillary won't have congressional Republicans on her side anyway, because they still think she put on a ski mask and personally assassinated Ambassador Stevens, and that her confession (and proof that she revenge cuck'd Bill) is hidden somewhere on her suspiciously private server.

A Hillary presidency would be more like another four years of Obama, and the country's getting tired of him. That's been the gist of Bernie's campaign, and he's making the milestones they said he'd never make.

Where in that post did I even mention Clinton's name? Also, you've shared that Atlantic article before - there's no need to keep sharing it, unless they've suddenly decided to add in new information.

America does not a European liberal - they need a President candidate who can get past this shitty partisanship and actually start governing to fix the shitty issues that continue to affect our country. That is never going to be Bernie, and you're right that it probably will not be Hilary (Though she stands a better chance than Sanders).

Pending it being a Trump/Cruz GOP ticket, I'll likely actually vote for them next year, because Sanders as President is going to be a fucking disaster.

Quote me on that.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 14, 2015, 08:43:23 PM

Quote from: Carsonogen on September 14, 2015, 08:32:39 PM

Dangerous/unsafe =/= needs to be changed

There are important things in the workplace that aren't big, life-threatening things. It's not 1896.

Right, and we're waiting for you to name some.

You're missing the point. It's not about naming stuff right now and working to get those things fixed, it's about having the agency to fix problems that may appear in the future. Without unions, changes can't happen through the workers, they happen whenever the employer decides to get around to it.

So, there are no pressing issues at this time that require the need for labor unions?

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 14, 2015, 08:29:44 PM

I think he's referring to partisans.

Then it's a fucking stupid thing to say. Of course partisan Republicans don't vote Democrat.

Otherwise they wouldn't be partisan.

The problem in America (Not sure how it's fairing for you Brits) is that the partisan divide has simply expanded in American politics - to the point that even the Supreme Court is getting involved in this. Of course there are voters who will always vote Republican and Democratic, but the more that happens, the more the moderate and independent voters matter in an election.

They will increasingly decide the outcome, the more that the 40-42% of Republicans vote as such, and vice versa for the Democrats.

GOPers don't vote Democrat anyway, so that point is moot. Likewise, Democrats will vote for their candidate because Sanders would be better than any Republican president (plus, he's Jewish, so he fulfills that silly little 'minority candidate' requirement). There's still over a year before the election day, so Bernie has plenty of time to motivate the base. And when looking at Bernie's actual views, he's not as much of a 'socialist' as the name would imply.

I do not even know where to begin.

First off, the notion that "GOPers don't vote Democratic", while seems nice, is false. In every elections, Presidential or Midterm, there is a good average of 5-10% of the opposing party who votes for your candidate (IE, Democrats who vote for McCain and Republicans for Obama). These moderate voters, along with the independent voters, can have a huge impact in terms of the final outcome of any election.

In 2008, when Obama won in a landslide, he garnished 9% of votes from Republican voters, up from 4% for Kerry in 2004, according to the Pew Research Organization. A poll by The Economist showed even more support for Obama by Republicans, winning 22% of conservative affiliated voters, a higher proportion than any Democratic candidate since 1980, source.

Second off, the claim that Bernie's views are not "as socialist as the name implies" is even more bullshit - the guy calls himself a socialist, and his views are more align with European liberals than any other Presidential candidate in this race, or the past five elections. Not only does the guy not mention a single bit of foreign policy on his website outside of Iran (Sorry Syria, you and the migrant crisis aren't fucking important),

Instead, Bernie touts big ideas such as "Invest 1 trillion in spending against income equality, infrastructure, etc." with no set plan on how to get that money besides "More taxes!", and doubling the minimum wage in a span of three years after his election, with no plan laid out as to how that will affect the average business that isn't a god damn Wal-Mart. Even if I support an increase, I don't support such a radical one as quick.

There's also the lovely part of politicizing the Supreme Court even more, but I won't get into that.

The fact is that as many fairy tale promises that Bernie Sanders will promise, he can guarantee absolute ZERO of it, because the President Does Not Make The Laws. He is going to have to work with Congress to get anything done, which will more than likely remain, at the very least, half controlled by the Republicans. And guess what? They will go for none of this shit.

Bernie Sanders as President is going to only continue the lame-duck Presidency that has shown how broken our government system still is. If you want that, it's kind of sad.

Even if you're working on an assembly line, you're entitled to the same safeties and regulations as anyone else. The problem is that without unions, employers could treat their employees any way they wanted to, and the only way to change it would be through the federal government. Unions allow any common worker to actually get things done outside Uncle Sam.

This isn't 1892, in the heat of the Industrial Revolution. The federal government, and nearly all (If not all) of the states have workplace laws regarding minimum wage, safety conditions, when kids can work, and most everything you can think of.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 14, 2015, 08:00:29 PM

Don't answer my question with another. You think that unions are still necessary, why do you think that?

I wasn't answering your question—I was implying that you might as well be asking yourself that question.

Having institutions around to set standards for how workers are treated sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Though, it's not that I think labor unions are necessary as much as I don't think they are unnecessary.

Do you think unions are unnecessary?

Depending on the career.

If you're going into a career at McDonalds, no. There are federal standards that dictate working conditions, and for a base minimum wage job, that is enough (The concept of workplace standards - of course those can always be improved).

There are likely many careers that benefit from having a union, so sure. They should have them. But the implication that every career option needs to have a union represent them is not true.

Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM

unions are pointless now and actually cause problems instead of fixing them

lolno

You think your employer gives a shit about you? You think your employer's employer does? Unions are the only organized group who actually care about people and not profit margins.

My company is constantly ranked in the Top 10 Best Companies to Work For, even as high as number one, without any union.

I'm sure there are some unions that are necessary for some careers, but the notion that they are 100% necessary for everyone is retarded.

...God I'm turning into PSU.

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 14, 2015, 05:30:59 PM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on September 14, 2015, 05:23:32 PM

>preferring Hillary

>ever

>preferring someone unelectable

Okay.

Not with that attitude.

Again, tell me.

How many independents and GOP voters do you honestly think are going to vote for a self-proclaimed "socialist" - especially from the swing states of Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, etc?

He is not going to win on false promises and far-left liberals. That will not happen.

Are unions really necessary anymore?

I will

Quote from: Fagcicle on September 14, 2015, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: Carsonogen on September 14, 2015, 06:28:02 PM

Good. Sanders is the only reasonable vote, tbh

Absolutely not.

Kasich is better than this moron.

LOL

Yeah, let's elect someone with even more corporate dicks in his mouth than Bush.

Great idea.

Yeah, let's elect someone with no trace of foreign policy on his "issues page", instead reverting to old promises that no President will ever accomplish.

Sanders can say whatever shit he wants about "Wall Street is bad! Colleges are  bad! Everything is bad!", but in the end, the legislature is the one who will address all that. Sanders is too polarizing to ever get anything done.