Ban movies while we're at it, oh and books!

Quote from: SpartanT on January 14, 2016, 06:59:30 AM

Quote from: Batch on January 14, 2016, 05:05:58 AM

Could be a Kingdom Hearts release year, nothing turning it down yet......I can dream

Well there is 2.8 coming out, not sure about 3 though

2.8? The fuck? I thought There were only like 3 of them, Dream Drop Dynamic or whatever.

Stop

I'm the mod this moonlit forum needs.

Yeah Naru that's pretty disgraceful.

With the first boss, poke and run baby. Poke and run.

Quote from: Batch on January 14, 2016, 05:17:59 PM

Quote from: RadicalClass32 on January 14, 2016, 05:15:30 PM

Quote from: Batch on January 14, 2016, 08:34:02 AM

Just bought Cloud, good lord his down B at limit break can KO at 50-60%

I like this too much >.>

Pretty much all of his specials are OP once limit break is active.

But yeah, down-b is most deadly.

I did face off against a Little Mac last night, they are very similar in more then a few aspects. Of course I beat him 3/4 times. Not that I'm a good Cloud, Little Mac is just easy to predict.

Though when he hits KO I get very nervous >.>

I'm actually afraid of For Glory little Macs.......

Some are predictable, and some can play smart mind games on you. I actually once JV5 won against a little mac.

I absolutely love messing with Little Macs and sit near the edged. Ive made a few suicide cause they decided to be smart and side B into me only to just dodge it

Also Cloud/Tiger Woods PGA Tournament is the best.

Quote from: Korra Kenobi on January 14, 2016, 04:29:28 PM

I don't know shit about Drunk Souls so is this invasion gametype a separate thing from the single player mode or is it mixed? If it is mixed then that's dumb, and if its its own thing then I don't see the problem.

Once they invade you, you fight them in a duel--and if you lose, they take some of your shit. So, you pretty much have to beat them if you want to keep your stuff. You have no choice--you have to fight them.

They actually don't take anything from you, you don't lose any items in game unless you choose to drop them. They gain a percentage of your souls from the victory, all you lose is your souls, which you can go and pick up from where you died. Just like any other death in the game.

Holy shit this got to quite a few pages >.>

Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 14, 2016, 08:31:33 AM

Quote from: Darth Pipsqueak on January 14, 2016, 08:07:19 AM

The whole goal of the Invasion system in Dark Souls 2 is so players have another challenge in the form of online play, it is literally called "invasion". I don't remember anyone ever consenting to someone invading their land. It makes zero sense for you to be able to "pick and choose" who invades you.

That just means that the entire concept of player invasion is flawed as fuck and should be destroyed.

Quote

There is also NPC's who invade or come to your aid as well, it's not always online players.

This is the only acceptable form of invasion. If there's already NPC invasions, there is NO NEED for player invasions. If someone wants to join your game, they should have to request it from you first. That's how it should work.

Quote

Plus, they have the opposite to help you out during your time on Dark Souls 2. You can touch a sign on the ground and "pop!" A friend from another world comes to help you out. So it isn't all invading and killing eachother.

Doesn't matter. There's still invasions, and that's bad.

Quote

rediculous.

*ridiculous

Dumbass.

Then play in fucking offline mode. It doesn't force you to play it.

All you did say in that was "I don't like that people come to kill me in Dark Souls."

Hey try living in Australia, it's a red blur and a lot of lost souls. That game sucked for PvP with us :/

Quote from: Simseoh on January 14, 2016, 06:52:47 AM

Is it not overly entitled to join a game where you can be matched with anyone, by design, and expect to matched with those only you consent with?

There is absolutely nothing "entitled" about not wanting to play with other people when you're not fucking asking for it.

That's, like, the exact opposite of entitled.

Kinda like someone inviting themselves over, you probably don't want them there, and they shouldn't be there, it's an invasion of privacy in a way. Yeah, I'm okay to agree in this. I never liked the gimmick anyway.

other people born in 1946

sylvester stalone (!)
steven spielberg
talia shire
anthony daniels
diane keaton
charlotte rampling
charles dance
cher
tim curry (!!!)
tommy lee jones
susan sarandon
sally field
peggy lipton
david lynch (!!!)
stephen rea
ed o'neill
brian cox
timothy dalton
penelope wilton
liza minnelli
hayley mills
oliver stone
dolly parton
lesley ann warren
susan lucci
danny glover
joanna lumley
david suchet
candice bergen
jeffrey jones
donald trump (!!!)
brenda blethyn
rade serbedzija
eugene levy

some of these people may already be dead, i dunno, i didn't check

Can we get rid of Trump before he gets us all killed?

Just bought Cloud, good lord his down B at limit break can KO at 50-60%

I like this too much >.>

First 3 are death traps for the overly obese,

I think you're overestimating the impact VR will have. The ability to rape has to be programmed in, just like right now. Only niche games will have rape in them, just like now.

Im talking about true VR, if we can interact with everything in everyway, like we can right now. You cant simply make someone not do something, instead you need to make consequences.