Comments by "Kantrel 7" (@blumiu2426) on "TheQuartering"
channel.
-
67
-
60
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
31
-
25
-
24
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
I unsubbed for the fact he can live in a city with mass homelessness and ignore that kind of reality outside your door. That's just setting yourself up to be pretend nobility before France's bloody revolution. He refuses to cover anything journalists do wrong, no matter how bit it gets and his sources are always left-leaning and some of the worst places online that are radical left. Then he jumped in with those people against the Six Days in Fallujah team and that confirmed it. Wanting to censor a game dev teams creative choice is never okay.
Also, he is a fanboy for Kojima, not Sony. I found this fact out about the cult of Kojima; they don't care about Silent Hill, they care only because he will be working on it. Many in comments have said as much. Now whether you hate Sony or not is one thing, but MS is no different. In fact, they were in the news support the whole Great Reset agenda, given the fact they have far more power than Sony will ever have, particularly in the political sphere and support authoritarian edicts. Both companies are woke, Microsoft just has far more arms and legs you need to pay attention to, unlike Sony only in gaming.
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I could have sworn Adam already talked about this unless he's going on different shows and drudging it up. I watched a video two weeks ago he was on a guy's show touching on it. People love gossip and that is a major character flaw many don't see as an issue. If you have nothing good to say, it's poorly reflecting on them to people that have no clue and serves no value, it's trash talk. He didn't hash it out with Tim or Lydia, so he goes to the public, who are not involved nor entitled to know, so they get one side of the story. Time never talked about the drama with his brother, so why do people think he is going to air things now?
It doesn't matter to me if Adam was telling the truth, half-truth; he is being childish by going about it this way on multiple occasions and hoping it doesn't come off as it is. Why would Tim do half of what he did when on supposed bad terms, though Adam was the one with the problem? Tim can be arrogant and I think that is mostly what people are judging on as it's a prominent thing to see, while not acknowledging Adam can have a subtler personality.
Again, drama whores will eat this up, judgmental people will eat this up. All this kind of thing does is expose the kind of people are in the audience. I get the impulse to want to clear things up, making mistakes, but this was the wrong way considering he himself didn't want to be friends with Tim anymore in his own words, but proceeds to keep bringing it up when Tim thinks everything is fine.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@salomaogomes7311 But this is just the Western perspective on what is good storytelling. Not everywhere in the world would agree because of different views, culture, morality and cinematography. I disagree, you are watching the experience, not making choices. RPGs allow you to make decisions and change aspects of the plot. Mass Effect? Far better story and interaction. There are many classic games in the RPG genre with stories that blow TLOU out of the water in lore, dialogue, characters. They just don't have the movie flare, but hit home in the way a game does. Maybe the integration of movie and game is what some desire, but for others like myself it's boring. Watching more than playing or set pieces which Naughty Dog professes in.
The politicking was blatant in Part 2 of course, they were emboldened by that point with cultural changes. The first game held off until the DLC to make it more prevalent what they were going for...but used children for it...
Hard to believe when they patched out the few bugs that had been spoken of. You indeed are a rare case. If the game was so buggy, the multiplayer would have been a disaster and not praised as it is.
If you say so. TLOU has grit and grime, but personally find GoT to be superior in what they did with a realistic setting yet added artistic elements to enhance it. People complained of bugs in TLOU Pt.2, I don't think many, but does any game have no blemish? Very few don't.
You're comparing a game with set pieces to an open-world game. No idea what you mean about "cabins", but how many wood houses do you think, out in the mountains of ancient Japan, looked different? Even then, I have no idea what you're talking about. Each location had different construction depending on environment; plains, marsh/swamps, mountains, sparse or destroyed settlements. There was nothing repetitive in GoT aside two types of side-quests (stopping bandits or dismantling a camp).
If you found drowned-out color palettes and ruined civilization a test of graphics, then I guess we disagree. TLOU is beautiful in it's own right, as do I find Days Gone to be in the same vein. But GoT does things with the engine that are breathtaking, both in grimy dark settings and vibrant scenic views.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ri-n6431 Wait, Crash is on Nintendo? I didn't know that. I think we should expect some degree of pandering from whomever now, especially if they have an American branch. It's just how hard they push it that matters. Japan isn't getting any of this on their end, so we have an idea of the parent/native take on these matters.
No one abandoned Nintendo for censoring games, but when you're one of the leading consoles, you're an easy target like Playstation. As long as Sony Japan is apolitical, I'll put up with it. Their console makes the games I like and I support devs that make games on Playstation here and in Japan. My time is divided between it and PC anyway.
BLM messaging is fine, to a degree, long as they don't start spouting the politics of BLM organization. I see it like Free Hong Kong, yet nowhere near as genuine. It's tricky, I'll say that, but I always correlate that whatever is being pushed or promoted by mainstream has an agenda.
They can't as it might not go against any policies directly or harm the company in any way. Now if they go out of their way as I said, I think so. Japan is distancing and guarding itself from extreme politics and Chinese encroachment. Long as American end doesn't try and nudge their Western studios to get political they can pander all they wish. They can learn the lesson Nintendo did when they step out of line with a big game being censored.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@naquingreen1603 Well...you are asking the wrong person lol! I left a looong reply to someone else about how much they changed from the actual lore. So, both seasons were trash. Now, it was probably good if you know nothing about Castlevania or only played SotN, but if a fan and delved into the franchise, you can't like it remotely.
It's hard to even dislike it properly because so much was just Warren Ellis' creation and had nothing to do with Curse of Darkness. From interviews I've read, he had no intention of making the show for fans, but more for himself or his audience. Whatever the agenda is for Westerner when they get ahold of Japanese IPs.
I am put off from anything Castlevania coming from Netflix because of this, yet it MIGHT have a chance because Ellis is no longer writing. That doesn't mean they won't just find another comic book writer without regard for the lore, but they might do it far better justice than this show did.
The problem is they messed up so many crucial things: Trevor was supposed to have defeated Dracula, creating the legacy of the Belmonts and conflict between them and Dracula. Dracula is no longer even in the picture, so that alone I can't even see it continuing unless they retcon everything that happened prior.
I've never seen a Western show have good enough character development to focus on few characters, which Rondo of Blood would involve. Richter and Maria is about it unless they are going to build up to...wherever they end up going without Dracula. If they even given him a fiance to get kidnapped by Shaft. They can change that up to be more interesting, but I've no idea how they'd proceed.
Symphony of the Night is easier because you have another trio to play off of, hopefully not another slap-stick, crude language trio. I don't think they could pull that off twice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@salomaogomes7311 I have no idea how a post-apocalyptic plot that has essentially been done in movies, was new and amazing. The main focus of Naughty Dog is to make game-movies. The characters were great, but not the plot. Everyone loves the interaction between Ellie and Joel, the rest was predictable. The irony in saying one is generic when based on a legendary film-maker's premise, and the other isn't when inspired by zombie-movie trending at the time lol!
I've heard of a few having trouble with bugs that were fixed shortly after release, but never anything severe. No article I've come across, so either your exaggerating or the loneliest number.
Now let's look at the games themselves; nothing was new about TLOU gameplay and it wasn't the best at what it did. The graphics were praised, characters, but not the rest. Could Ghost of Tsushima have been better in plot? In ways, yes, but I can only think of the ending being a bit better. Felt quick-ish, but might have eluded to something more like a sequel coming later. I didn't like the historical inaccuracies like women samurai or in positions of authority when NOT the case in ancient Japan particularly. I've studied Japanese history so that was important (aside romanticized aspect of ninja). There was pandering that took about 10% or less enjoyment out of it for me. The rest was perfect.
The best graphics I've seen on PS4 that struck me as being PC-level, as someone that plays on PC. I've watched Kurosawa films and it indeed strikes true in many respects, yet by now it's dated and plots weren't that complex. It was the execution and cinematography used that was lauded. The gameplay was perfect; so much I couldn't play Wild Hunt compared to it's controls.
So TLOU might have had better character dynamics, but GoT was just a better game in graphics, gameplay and overall story. Last one is subjective if you like zombies or samurai films more. But because of politics when ND pushes, SP won't gain that influence lest they sell out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lostcontroller Bloodborne, TLOU, Days Gone, Spider-Man, infamous games, Ghost of Tsushima, God of War, Detroit: Become Human (if into that kinda thing), Horizon: Zero Dawn, Death Stranding (again, if your thing lol), Crash, Spyro and Ratchet & Clank.
You either live under a rock or are going to say none of these games were good. Which makes you factually wrong, no matter your level of bias.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raumograeywolf5477 That's true, but only toward things they don't like. Things that go against the political climate, it's quite obvious what those things are as they complain about them the entire article. Death Stranding is not that. They give positive reviews to any other game, praise to those that do contain political commentary aligning with them. I don't see any reason Death Stranding would get its score other than 1) The reviewer sucked at playing it, had no patience and gave up or 2) Because it had a white guy main, like they dropped the score on Days Gone for having. No one likes IGN reviews anyway, so it shouldn't matter. Gamer reviews will reflect a spectrum, not just one person, but then again, you wouldn't be listening to a video opinion of someone else, either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Um, you realize white people are actually not the majority, but people with pigment. Asians are the largest group in the world and makes sense to see them in their varied ethnicities. Yes, to see more black people than white would be bizarre unless they gave some in-game reason for it because remember, it's a fictional world. It's not our own, so discomfort at not seeing someone that looks like you is strange. I don't even think about it playing games, so clearly white people are not used to it at all. And in some places in the world there are more women than men, so again, I think what you're pointing to is the wrong thing.
The forced diversity has characteristics one can point to and indicate that it is indeed there because of agenda. Because something lacks whiteness nowadays may indeed be pointing to wokeness, but they can get away with it if it's part of the lore. I wouldn't force LotR to put in diversity, it wasn't meant for it, but for Anglo-Saxon culture to have a mythos. There can be stories not catering to the American/Western majority, just use discernment of why it is what it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now...how the hell are you telling the story from their perspective when you have prior chapters and events in the books before Yen or Ciri appear? I had a feeling they would focus on them once they appeared, but to do it in such a way is stupid. Basing it around either removes everything Geralt is doing as they are split up a great amount of the time, no mystery as to what happened or happening to either in Geralt's search for them.
I'm speaking from book perspective. This doesn't make much sense, not with what the trailers showed. They would have to alter the story in order for this to work, so this will more than likely be crap. Not because of the actors or story, but because the people behind it rather be agenda-based asses and ruin the adaption. The author can't say anything after this if it fails, because his support was behind it. You ruin your work, you just boost the game take all the more. Idiot. However, someone did say he got tired of Geralt in the books, so he might agree with this. To me, if you can't improve your character and rather focus on other perspectives, it's time to writer another book or take a break.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know Europe has been had centers for this. I mean...people can get addicted to anything, especially gaming. It activates endorphins like heroine does, according to research. There have been people playing online games that killed themselves they couldn't pull away, has to mean something.
I think this is true for certain people (as not everyone is mentally strong as others), but not all. So, I can believe it, but it's not THAT serious.
And c'mon. South Korea with how big competitive mmo gaming/mmo gaming in general is, would be vehemently against this.
Look at gambling, same concept of getting into something that pulls you in since it activates parts of the brain associated with pleasure and gratification. I think it'll help with the microtransaction ban bill. Again, instead of thinking too much, I think it applies to those that can't pull away from video-games. I doubt pills will be required, but more having people not game excessive amounts of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everyone is forgetting Crowder said everyone at the DW was being quite because they couldn't speak due to their contract. The moment he suggests they are sellouts and controlled, he did attack them indirectly. He's not stupid, he did the same thing by naming-not naming the Daily Wire. The moment they defend themselves and speak up, even saying the Daily Wire isn't perfect, people then switch to them being sent to attack Crowder. Willing ignorance and blind loyalty is all I'm seeing. I don't agree with Candace on not criticizing a friend when they are wrong, but no one is mentioning any of the points she raised while pissed. She clearly stated she was pissed, so she isn't going to present the best image.
I get the ideology Crowder wants, but then he goes about it in the worst way imaginable and character- destroying methods. I can't trust anyone like that while supposedly saying the people you did it to are friends. You don't accuse friends of being controlled opposition; that's double-speak. You either consider them an enemy, you don't like their business and walk away, but don't call them friends to appear innocent.
You all rally behind a person, not an ideal or position. It's no different than the left making government their god. The weakness is exposed and all those in intelligence have to do now is slip in and whisper exactly what people want to hear. It's pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's right, though. God of War bastardized Greek mythology, but it still stuck to it far more than what it is doing with Ragnarok. He is trying to dress it as racism when the alteration has no evidence supporting it, because historically, why would Norse think up black people they had never met to represent their gods? They had seen blue dead bodies I'm wagering to come up with that depiction or even because of body paint. There are many logical reasons you can understand their take on things based on their environment and worship of nature.
Inserting randomly, during a heightened political period with race and gender being pushed, is he really going to say that it had no bearing on the creative decision? Disingenuous individual at best that tries to gaslight and paint people in a certain light when he can't intelligently make justification. Altering lore is one thing, altering the looks to the degree they become another race, is quite another. Is he going to glance over the real fact (ironically) racism exists, that certain looks don't appeal to others? That child doesn't look like anyone they've ever seen before, there is a going to be an aesthetic reaction immediately of some kind, but is that thinking too realistically or are they going to dodge a narrative moment just to make something drastically obvious 'acceptable" and invisible?
I don't think as a black individual I need to be arguing this. You can take whatever creative license you like, but don't expect it to be accepted and criticized for exactly what it is. Don't act like people don't see the media at war and government trying to manipulate race, sex and gender conflicts with the populace and say you made the decision without that in mind. Every last Jotun better be black because skin color exists for a reason and for someone that dark to exist in that climate naturally is immersion breaking. Fantasy has grounds in aspects of reality, you make bad fantasy when you decide "fantasy" means "free for all".
Maybe some Norse Jotun god went and banged a African god and had her, don't ask me. They could have come up with a nonsensical reason to address it, but to disguise it as normal is stupid. Stop tokenizing races to suit your needs, because it's not genuine representation. They likely did this on purpose to meet quota and to seem virtuous if anyone criticized it. I didn't like Jet Black being turned black (most racist thing in awhile) THEN they go and make the mother of monsters, the black person. People should be pointing out covert racism going on, not the fact they just changed the race.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If it's true they were Mormon, good luck with that. If both were minors, he said he was 12 at the time in the email while people say he was 17. No idea how you can charge someone that did something at 12, but he did have carnal knowledge at 17. But my issue is if the family did nothing and knew about it and he made it known to the family trying to make amends, if he was molested (implying a cycle) and thus his current career, what can be done? Even the Bible says with any assault, make it known then. If they have to flee from those wanting vengeance, they better make it to safety. However, unless he continued the pattern of abuse, this seems a lost opportunity.
Maybe he could have turned himself in later, but why wait so many years at particular moment? You can want justice for what was done but for the wrong motivation. If seeing him successful was the trigger and feeling that wrong, when it was brought up in the past before, how genuine is wanting him to see justice? Again, this is why you never wait and why families need to take action instead of pretending it didn't happen or hide it. If he was 12, there is no case, so he had to have been older or it's ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wouldn't major publications promote Kojima, not downcast him as he supports Hollywood, hasn't gone against anything. Maybe it's because a white guy is the main, but I don't think Death Stranding is for everyone, much less something that has micro-management. Those reviews go to those that are familiar with that type of thing, not those writing for AAA releases. Too much for them. I've never heard of them going against Kojima at any point, the game at any point for anything. I'm not sure I believe this take on it.
There aren't bad reviews going around for this, it's just not a masterpiece like everyone was thinking because Kojima. It's like most Japanese games, it attracts a certain audience, no matter the budget. SE can't pull anything off beside an online game with theirs. A lot of fluff with graphics and actors, but might not be something everyone wants to pay full price for, play at all or make it through.
1
-
1
-
@holysanguinius202 That's all you noticed changed? Well, let me go through everything changed since you are a fan, as I'm surprised you didn't find much changed...just sounds questionable.
1)Dracula powers are nerfed; his powers come from that of Domination, able to control ALL creatures of the night; demons, werewolves and vampires. so Carmilla would never have rebelled against him, much less would have been killed by other loyals if not himself.
Dracula wasn't sitting around mopping about his replacement wife for Elizabetha, but incited again to destroy mankind, which he was already doing. In the lore, Alucard was part of his army, so technically, Liza slept with the enemy of mankind, and though never explored, we know she resembled the fiance he damned his soul for.
2) The castle is not a product of ancient technology, but part of his powers. It is a living entity, thus "the demon castle". It changes shape and interior as well as dimensions. They tried to make the show about science vs religion.
3) Liza wasn't burned at the stake by the church, but crucified by a mob of villagers.
4) Trevor, like all Belmont's were trained from childhood with a sense of purpose based on their beliefs and sense of duty for mankind. The Belmonts were not attacked or even hated by the people, just feared because of their unique abilities compared to any other hunter of the night.
Instead, they made him the typical boorish anti-hero seen in most shows or books. We know his personality from the manga and appearance in Curse of Darkness. Trevor was actually a very boring character, as they had to have him paired with Sypha always to keep up the slap-stickness.
5) Vampire Killer was the only weapon capable of slaying Dracula, not the Morning Star. It was a video-game upgrade, not an actual weapon on par with it. The whip had the soul of Leon's fiance within, giving it that power through alchemy. a STAKE killed Dracula, which never would, when Trevor was supposed to have beaten him with it to start the legacy of the Belmonts defeating him. The show ignored everything important about the Vampire Killer, even it's name. It was just a whip in the show.
Crucial and central lore ignored.
6) Sypha was not from a pagan tribe that was the enemy of God, that was more of Ellis' anti-religion inserted. She was raised by the church when her family was killed, using her powers to fight against the night. So the church was actually good as they employed Trevor in the first place according to lore. She also was disguised as a man to hide the fact she was a witch (or at least easier to identify).
7) They removed Grant and lied about the reason why. Ellis didn't like Grant's name and didn't think it made sense that a pirate should be in-land...not doing enough research to know Grant was a thief, not a pirate. Then he went and added a pirate character in the show...the fact was Grant would have been the boorish drunk character, not Trevor, but you can't have two with the same personality.
8) Carmilla was the feminist insert. Instead of being his most loyal servant like in the games, her story and much dialogue is about how dumb and evil men are (near all she says is sexist). She beats Hector like a dog and has her all-girl squad.
9) Speaking of Hector, the most bastardized character in the series. Bares no resemblance to the actual character other than looks and some backstory elements.
10) Curse of Darkness plot was removed because Dracula wasn't seeking vengeance after death, but died being 'emo Dracula'. When he died, his curse would infect mankind, driving them to madness if their hearts were tainted enough.
11) Yes, Isaac was race-swapped, but he had a far better backstory. Iga designed him to be antithesis to Hector, the one succumbed by the curse, thus the outfit similar to Hector's was in tatters.
His red hair was also meant to symbolize sin compared to Hector's white, symbolizing purity. More than that, he wanted to show how inhuman they were as Devil Forgemasters. In Romanian lore, red and white hair were traits associated with vampires.
Isaac also had a sister, one that was central to the story between Hector and Isaac. Isaac having Hector's lover killed was one thing, yet the woman resembled Isaac's sister, so her role was to be a binding thread between the two, as well as love interest for Hector.
So no, Isaac was actually a very interesting character, more fleshed out in the manga, than the race-swapped one in the show which really didn't do much.
12) Hector and Isaac got their powers from Dracula, they did not have their Devil Forgemaster abilities on their own. Also, they made them necromancers in the animation, not actually creating creatures/demons from their own will.
13) Alucard is not bisexual. Ellis had been said naked men was one of the things he wanted in the show regardless, just to appease women and gay men; had nothing to do with adding to the IP. Disrespectful to the character and something that belonged in a Anne Rice novel.
14) Trevor and Sypha would never have slept together before marriage. Given the fact the Belmonts are Catholics and holy warriors and the time period, you don't do that to women nor bring children into the world that way from either angle.
15) St. Germaine was given the same backstory as Dracula for some dumb reason when he was a very enigmatic, jolly fellow that was meant to look out of place with his manner and attire.
16) They removed Death so long because if they had him from the beginning, as he never leaves Dracula's side, they couldn't pull off Carmilla's plot. He would have killed her, even if Isaac did nothing, Hector cowed and Dracula made stupid (even though he is a master tactician).
They had not good explanation for it and it didn't even have anything to do with taking the form of Zead, which made sense AFTER failing to protect Dracula.
17) Every character had the same sense of humor, even the NPCs. All used the same crude language, randomly even and made more sense in a modern setting than in setting. that is the writer inserting his personality, not the characters having their own. Dropping F-bombs every line is immature, not mature and takes away from the tone of the show. Also, the among of piss and sex jokes from Sypha was just stupid. It was like someone from Tumblr or Reddit wrote this deliberately for that audience.
18) The Belmont's never had some archive of all things. They likely had a village given that in Order of Eclessia, we see village of the Belmont ancestors. Given from the time of Leon to Trevor, there was enough time for that to take place. The Belmont were gifted with their holy powers, but there were other relatives that also hunted the night, explaining where the Morris clan came from.
So I see a horde of issue with the show and why it fails to be even a convincing adaptions. Being a good animation is one thing, but a good show? No, they just tried to make Game of Thrones with Castlevania. The other issue is people claiming to be fans not actually knowing anything about the content Castlevania actually has out there for the lore.
The fact that Igarashi cancelled the first pitch for the show because of Ellis' script, the same one used for the show again, didn't even get the man that brought life into the franchise. He said in an interview that he wanted to take Iga into an alley and beat him up because he didn't like his script. He didn't want to play the games to understand it better, only using the Wiki loosely. He wanted to do what he wanted with the show, make it his own, not make something for fans.
Just like every other comic book writer destroying whatever they touch.
So I strongly disagree with you based on all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay, remember this is based on the books, not the game. If Geralt lacked personality in the game, he certainly didn't in the books. He cracked jokes/perpetual smartass and there was a good amount of humor. I'm wondering if his bard friend is in this...haven't seen him. But no, Geralt has range to his character and a lot of times doesn't make the best decisions based on his neutral stance on things, which works against him and learns better later. So, book Geralt, not game Geralt. No beard, he shaved his scruff in the books.
It makes sense if you study medieval culture; those without means or coin couldn't shave, those with means or wealth did, also wore clothing that distinguished themselves in class. Geralt having a beard wouldn't make sense, not unless it was trimmed, mustached and such. But more than anything, he likely shaved because Yennifer preferred it that way too lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
The indoctrinated are getting the vaccine because they trust the government, though they have done nothing to earn trust, only suspicion. They think getting it will relieve the fear, panic that is swallowing things up. They can feel part of something. The medical community cannot be trusted because they won't stand up for science against social psychosis that contradicts science, but will go out of their way to lambast Creationists and debate them. I've researched America and world government actions when it comes to these situations and they are never, ever for the benefit of the people. I don't know what people have injected into themselves, but it isn't a vaccine. It won't make you healthy. I can only hope it doesn't backfire in a few years because there is a reason they created with non-culpability in place. 50% of America agreed to be lab rats just like when American housewives were given poison and generation of the 60s fed psychedelics by the CIA. We know about Agent Orange, the Syphilis experiments, how Fauci was connected to the AIDs outbreak (and had a collogue thrown in prison for saying it was manufactured).
Given these historical facts, and many others, people should have really thought about this critically. But people want normalcy more than they want truth. If anyone ever tries to tell me about evolution and how humanity is progressing, I'll laugh them to scorn. We haven't moved a single inch from when Kain killed Abel, and we're just as willing to commit the same act given the right circumstances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do people think it will be like Dark Souls, when FromSoftware said they will never touch that formula again? Plus, it wasn't said to follow GoT/SoIF, just medieval fantasy. It will be something different, not predictable unless follows what is already been done (and Miyazaki doesn't go that route). I will say Martin is a good storyteller, not writer. In that respect, no one has heard of him aside fans of his work until he gave his story to HBO, so don't expect it to be...what you think.
Miyazaki did say after DS3 came out that he was working on another medieval type game, Armored Core and Sekiro already released, then something odd he wanted to do. If just helping Martin with it, it might not be that big or could be a big development project. After three years, who knows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronbosen6743 And you're still wrong. I already know about what was officially stated. Never forget the simple truth that telling a lie mixed with some truth is always effective. Not everyone in the FBI or other organizations involved are privy to those that create scenarios.
People really need to stop saying things are conspiracy as if a negative. Conspiracies are things simply not prove true yet and always the powers-at-be telling the public it shouldn't be believed. If you believe what the government says, well, nothing more needs to be said there.
He was a plant. Either MK Ultra/sleeper, coerced and manipulated into the role or agent, latter less likely. If you don't believe in such things, you really must be avoiding reading declassified documents of the messed up things organizations do to save your peace of mind.
It has all but been blatantly stated that JFK was assassinated by our very government by trying to make changes that would radically alter the designed course of those in control. It was broadcast on television on purpose in a scenario/ritual called the "killing of the king".
it is a psychological imprint on society of a shocking scale that whatever is put forth after will be accepted and ingrained on some level moving forward. These are high level psychological techniques used in warfare or complex social engineering.
The unabomber served that same purpose on a certain scale and level, as well as the narrative attached to him. It was also done on a specific astrologic occult date, as was JFK assassinated. This stuff goes deep because these people in power are crazy, not because it's unbelievable.
They put a lot of this stuff in movies because "hiding in plain sight" is part of their mode of operation, so by admitting to what they do (whether the public knows or not), they gain more power and influence from those they worship. As anyone that has knowledge of the occult about these details. Truth has always been stranger than fiction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@That's Life I don't wan this to come off rough, but you're going to need to come up with new verses as a defense. I've seen this used almost ten years ago and it won't hold up. At the same time I know this is these are the verses used in the Roman Church as proof. Here's what the Bible actually says and history:
First, why would the most emotionally charged of the apostles be the foundation of Christ's church? Spoke too soon, even you said about he was rebuked, but didn't say what was said: Mathew 16:21-23 "Get thee behind Me Satan! You are an offense to me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but those of men." So you're saying God gave the apostle he called Satan (trying to prevent his sacrifice) and had the devil speaking through him, such a vital role?
Peter used in that verse if you look at the Greek is "petros", meaning pebble or a loose stone, something moving. How is that a foundational stone? "Petra" in Greek is a solid stone. Jesus used petra when he says "upon THIS ROCK..." referring to Himself, for Christ and not man, can save and redeem souls.
You conflated the fact Jesus saying He was going to build His church on the declaration that Peter made, not Peter himself. Go back and look in your own church and you'll find St. Augustine held this view.
Peter himself says this in 1 Peter 2:4-8 "Christ alone is the ROCK (petra) which we build the church".
Jesus prays for Peter because he is the most unstable in Luke 22:31–34.
Then you forget the other apostles were also present and proceeded to argue whom among the was the greatest in Mathew 9:3, Mathew 20:20 and Luke 24:23-26. Jesus never declared.
You'll find after Christ's death Paul calls each apostle pillars of the church, never saying Peter was the chief among them nor anyone else.Galatians 2:11-21 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain Gentiles came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them, which were of the circumcision..."
I'd like to point out a contradiction in Catholicism in that if you are following Peter's example, why aren't priests or popes allowed to marry? Peter was married. 1 Corinthians 9:5
If you look in the accounts, who acted in role as head of the church after Jesus' crucifixion? Who was called the one whom Jesus loved? That would be Jesus' older brother, James. In fact, James settles the dispute over circumcision, not Peter. Acts 15:13, Galatians 2:9. But not even he was called petra.
Historically, the position, word nor role "pope" existed in their time. You see it appear in the 1100s. Look up Martin Hengel, a German scholar and he determined there was no evidence of supremacy placed on Peter.
You'll see the Bishop Steven declared Peter was the foundation and head, while every other bishop in his time rejected the claim. So not even the Catholic Church in it's early history agreed or believed what became a teaching later on. Only in 1870 did you see any declaration, but that was in response to Protestantism at the time.
1 Corinthians 3:9-11 makes it clear whom the foundation of the church is laid upon to which all apostles agreed in their writings.
It's amazing that Catholicism teaches this to justify their terrany and power when all Jews during Jesus' time referred to Rome as Bablyon, to which is linked to the antichrist or persecuting power against Christiandom. Not to mention Catholicism erased the Sabbath because of racism against the Jews during Constantine's time and replaced it with the god/religion he worshipped, Mithraism. Mithraism had it's Jesus and Mary archtypes that fit how Catholics view Jesus and Mary's relationship: Mithra is a goddess while in the Bible no divinity is attached to Mary and says she is dead in her grave until the resurrection. Sol Invictus is attached to the sun (if his name isn't a clue).
The Venerable Day of the Sun was a holiday first celebrated separate from the Sabbath, then alongside the Sabbath until they replaced the Sabbath with it and then outlawed the practice of worship on the 7th day/Saturday, Sunday instituted as the official day of worship.
Did not the Bible say the beast would think to change times and laws? Did Christ not say His laws were unchanging as He was?
I think that is a solid enough refutation, but I could go on.
1
-
@That's Life You're deliberately being disingenuous. This is what Calvin wrote:
[19.And I will give thee the keys Here Christ begins now to speak of the public office, that is, of the Apostleship, which he dignifies with a twofold title. First, he says that the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys; and, secondly, he adds, that they are invested with a power of binding and loosing, which is ratified in heaven. (440) The comparison of the keys is very properly applied to the office of teaching; as when Christ says (Luke 11:52) that the scribes and Pharisees, in like manner, have the key of the kingdom of heaven, because they are expounders of the law. We know that there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word. ]
Calvin says apostleship, not any other office. They are teachers, revealing the truth and that truth is in the Bible. Not God's divine right given to various fallible human beings. Imperfect men that started wars, encouraged wars, abused the innocent, stole from the poor, used secular powers for wealth and control, murdered and tortured and fought one another (when two popes existed). Does that sound like the history of divine appointment or men bending the Scripture? Only Christ is perfect and can judge and forgive sins.
[Hitherto I have given a plain exposition of the native meaning of the words, so that nothing farther could have been desired, had it not been that the Roman Antichrist, wishing to cloak his tyranny, has wickedly and dishonestly dared to pervert the whole of this passage. The light of the true interpretation which I have stated would be of itself sufficient, one would think, for dispelling his darkness; but that pious readers may feel no uneasiness, I shall briefly refute his disgusting calumnies. First, he alleges that Peter is declared to be the foundation of the Church. But who does not see that what he applies to the person of a man is said in reference to Peter’s faith in Christ? There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words Πέτρος ( Peter) and πέτρα, ( petra, a stone or rock,) (445) except that the former belongs to the Attic, and the latter to the ordinary dialect. But we are not to suppose that Matthew had not a good reason for employing this diversity of expression. On the contrary, the gender of the noun was intentionally changed, to show that he was now speaking of something different. (446) A distinction of the same sort, I have no doubt, was pointed out by Christ in his own language; (447) and therefore Augustine judiciously reminds the reader that it is not πέτρα (petra, a stone or rock) that is derived from Πέτρος, ( Peter,) but Πέτρος ( Peter) that is derived from πέτρα, (petra, a stone or rock ) ]
In the highlighted section Calvin raises the exact question as to what the meaning is. He is directly challenged the Roman Church's position, that it is Peter's faith addressed as the foundation, not he himself. He even goes on to say he was speaking to all the apostles present, not just the direct exchanged between him and Peter.
Calvin even calls the Roman Church the antichrist power, but of course, he was a reformer.
Jesus is JUST the head of the church? What does that even mean? Every time you refer to Christ's authority, you throw in submissiveness. Did you notice that?
[Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone. —Ephesians 2:19-20]
Peter himself says Christ is the ROCK, the foundation which the church stands. Not himself.
Whoops, my mistake. Tied two thoughts together. John I meant is denoted as "the one whom Jesus loved" while James had the actual authority in the church during the apostle's lifetime.
Yes, it does mean something. All are flawed, and that is the point. The one that showed the most flaws, Peter and one of the greatest apostles despite this, could not be put in place of Christ on earth given that fact. It requires perfection of nature, which only Christ had on earth.
You would think Enoch, Moses or Elijah, all men taken to Heaven for their closeness with God. Perfection of character is rewarded in following Christ, so how would Peter compare to men that understood Christ's nature and walked with God?
Do you realize your reading what you want to read into what was being said? Nowhere does Iraneaus say that the position of Pope is biblical. That is the point in this. Bishops were biblical as there is evidence of that structuring of the church in the Bible. Everyone knows that there was a church in Rome, that's like saying there are churches in California. A church is a two or more believers in Christ, it can exist anywhere. Nowhere is it indicated that pagan Rome was special to Hebrews that called it Babylon.
So you've stated the obvious; that the apostles (not just Peter and Paul as they all had a work assigned by Christ) formed the church. That church spread across the world. With the proper definition of "church", we know what is being referred to, not some pagan power that cloaked itself in Christianity because it decided to use it as killing them wasn't working.
So how is the Pope assigned by God, when only Christ was perfect? We know where each Pope came from, they replace one another in the same lifetime, they have fought and killed one another for power. One was excommunicated for his actions, deposed by fellow men, not by God. One was taken capture by secular forces; where was God then? In fact, Revelation prophesied that the beast would receive a deadly wound for the exact amount of time he was captured til the time they were reinstated by Italy.
Not just that, but the same church is supposedly that of Christ that supported Nazi Germany? Really? I don't need to touch on the Inquisition against Jews and Protestants.
You can believe that history is that of God all you like, but I'll believe the church Christ talks about in His Word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Glenn Krenz John Locke was part of what started it. Many of those philosophers and thinkers ushered in a societal push for secular reasoning, which eventually led to Age of Enlightenment, which led to the Bloody Revolution, because that is the result of a society without a foundation in morality aka religion of some kind. It didn't take long for moral decline to set in for that to happen in France and it isn't taking long for it to set in now. The only thing that made it take nearly 100 years is because America was a primarily Christian nation that became part of the fabric until it was eroded enough to no longer be in the following generations.
Socialism is the worship of state, so technically it still is religion, but the worship of man and systems of mankind. And because we are so indecisive and unstable, chaos always follows. America accepted Marxism quick as it did because there was no counterbalance in the homes, schools for the children to combat it with. Evolution is part of Communist thinking, but religion is not. It's the enemy of it, so that should put the pieces together.
In case you mention Rome's actions, the Catholic Church is the most secular institution in the world, it just has pagan rituals and Christianity mingled to give it an appearance of religion. It sided with Germany in WWII plus all it's other actions showing how contrary it is.
1
-
@michaelhart7569 It doesn't sound like you read or like to, so you wouldn't be researching to learn about it then. I sure hope you don't depend on the news for your edification.
At what point did you imagine it was said that everything was perfect in those times? I believe I said those times compared to know had more morality, not perfect morality. No idea why you made an assumption like that. What kind of example is that? Seeing bruises on someone or being emotionally distraught is still treated the same way today. It is far more talked about and ways to help, but families still ignore abuse when family members do it, in fact certain abuse has escalated compared to back then. Check the statistics if not some awful websites out there.
When you have religious principles at the core of a community, you are less likely to see certain behavior that someone without beliefs has no qualms or can justify would. All one has to do is research religious communities back then or now to know if they lived differently from the world. And I don't mean from a cultural stance, but practicing/adhering. It's been proven, but that isn't the issue and people don't care if it would lessen issues, they just don't want to believe in it.
Society hasn't improved at all and we are seeing the results of moving away from religion. Trying to go back to the extremism of the Roman Church over hundreds of years ago when it was by all example a secular force using religion, doesn't work. As I said, examine the fabric of society in time when Christianity was dominant in the US. Less issues overall and people still acted like they had more of a conscious.
Society is in the stages of collapse right now by historical standards. Religion is not the dominant force in the world right now, so please tell me how secularism helped anyone when it shifts and changes according to those controlling society. Either the government, entertainment industry is controlling and dictating us or religion does, otherwise, why would it be the one thing Communism tries to exterminate? They aren't worried about morality because morality changes left up to everyday people. We've accepted same sex, accepted transgenders, people want to be accepted for bestiality and pedophilia, for incest. Some places they are and if you map the timeline of when things started, you can see the decline; it was the exact pattern of other secular civilizations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1