Lurker > Baha05

https://youtu.be/3wR5C7FcSyg?si=uROl3fc7n5UJiB3w

Nemu posted...

The point is that it's an irrelevant question. Whether someone sees the details of the trial or not, nearly everyone in the country is going to have some bias for Trump, for or against him, so even one fan of him getting onto the jury could lead to a hung jury. That's what the OP is implying, as far as I can tell. In a perfect world, everyone would be impartial, but I don't think it's possible to guarantee.

Whatever then.

Nemu posted...

The details of the trial don't really matter if someone with preconceived notions of the defendant is allowed onto the jury, and, given the defendant, that's a pretty hard ask. Even if the juror states that they can remain impartial, that's not necessarily true. I assume they'd do things like comb social media to check for major biases (assuming that's allowed), but you could still easily get someone who claims they'd be impartial while not actually being impartial. Properly filtering that out is probably a near impossible task.

I mean they kind of do if said people are not allowed to review the materials of the trial via third party sources so again you provided no damn answer.

furb posted...

Correct only information at the trial that was admitted as evidence. The introduction of outside information by a juror would be a major problem and would lead to juror dismissal.

Thank you this person provided an answer

Who?

Nemu posted...

The ability to find a group of 12 completely impartial people on such a large and prolific trial would probably be like finding 12 specific grains of sand on a beach. The only real thing they need to hope for is that they didn't pick from the greasy, gross red sand.

Not really an answer there

Arent like jurors restricted from looking up any information on the case they are actively on the bench for?

Sephiroth_C_Ryu posted...

By all means, lets just let those states have no video games anymore as well as no doctors.

Only half /s
The "American Thing To Do" is to rise up against oppressors. Supposedly.

Problem is if it happens in Texas it just means that it will happen in other states.

https://youtu.be/STrE338cTBk?si=aycLKrNloCpggzuJ

Zikten posted...

He'd probably destroy all copies of the original, if he could

Whose to say he hasnt?

https://youtu.be/lykiNYpq5AI?si=6BXH0xzxQbLGk3AD

Scotty_Rogers posted...

and then he made it his main thing because liveaction wasn't working out

https://youtu.be/xjeGFUfpjVw?si=9EBLTKXn9HgMf7Nk

I feel like this should be more about K-Pop exploding into popularity rather then anime given you k ow the decades of exposure to anime.

One hand he kinda has a point on the other it makes him a massive piece of shit baby

Should be a life sentence

WingsOfGood posted...

It is not up to me, nor is it up to you, that is the whole point of faith in language. What is an RPG? It is clearly defined. I didn't define it. You cannot say it is malleable and start calling things that aren't RPG that just because you want to.
I mean you CAN, but when you do people go "umm that is not an RPG" which is what we see happened with FF7r.

wtf does that have anything to do with the argument over a defintion of word

RPGs are shorts for Role Playing Games which has several subsets that we all are aware of. The problem isnt from rather or not something is classified as an RPG here but people flip flopping between the words Remake, Reimagining, Remaster and how these sorts of things can vary so damn heavily that there is almost always going to be some arguments surrounding the words. Despite the fact that we at least can come to some good conclusions or even compromises.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

ITP Im going to use the word shill incorrectly to insult Baha.

WingsOfGood posted...

Thanks. I will move on for their behalf.

I will reiterate what I just said though:

Words are not beholden to the intention of a developer. They could have fully intended to make a remake but in reality they did not. No one cares what they intended only what is the actual real world result.

Whatever you say then. I guess the next time anything dealing with censorship will just have to be ignored if the creators choose to make those changes. Fuck creative rights and all that guys.

MrMolinaro posted...

FFS just take the L and move on. You lost this argument like 100 posts ago.

It wouldnt be an L if there wasnt that inherent bias for something people cannot even agree on and would rather misuse words in the first place.

WingsOfGood posted...

You don't actually understand what this means do you?
What exactly is my malicious intent? What does me proving that words aren't malleable as you suggest they are do that is bad?
I have faith in language, you want people to be able make words mean what they want for their own nefarious reasons such as selling more copies of a game.

Yes I do and that doesnt negate the fact you purposely cut that from the full quote in where I call your bullshit for making it seem like I am putting SE on this untouchable height.

WingsOfGood posted...

???

Point is you believe they are they arbiter of truth when we can prove they lied.
Who gives a shit what they claim the game is, that means nothing.
Anyone can play it and see for themselves.

And we see what happens when they do. As said multiple times ITT by users who aren't me:

There is the classification system. You can't see it? Why not? All these other people can see it and understand it. Not sure why you can't.

WingsOfGood posted...

???

Point is you believe they are they arbiter of truth when we can prove they lied.
Who gives a shit what they claim the game is, that means nothing.
Anyone can play it and see for themselves.

And we see what happens when they do. As said multiple times ITT by users who aren't me:

There is the classification system. You can't see it? Why not? All these other people can see it and understand it. Not sure why you can't.

Its an older article that may have been relevant at one point but developers can change things and during development things can be added in. The fact is that you still present nothing that really classifies it as one or the other because that doesnt exist to tell the difference here its all based around opinions.

WingsOfGood posted...

What they say literally has no meaning. You realize they said a lot of things that were false?

A simple poll. Did the devs lie? Majority says they did.

A quick glance provides an objective source we can scientifically test.
https://www.gematsu.com/2015/06/final-fantasy-vii-remake-wont-have-new-characters

They said there would be no new characters. Are there new characters Baha? Are there?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/168653-final-fantasy-vii-remake/80012103

Stop putting them on a pedestal.

So your one example is a 2015 article? Also still no word on a classification that determines the difference.

Also do not mistake me pointing out the game as a remake as putting SE on a pedestal this is exactly why you are coming across as someone arguing in bad faith.

WingsOfGood posted...

Are you asking if some website has done this? The classification is the general population of gamers understand words.

See poster above and what they says:

Why however do they come to this conclusion? How do they know what a sequel or a spinoff is?

It is just general knowledge. The same is with remakes and only a small fraction of gamers try to be contrarian here. Like I said, you go to FF7 board and literally right now a thread is people arguing this very point.

"b-b-but just because the majority believes something doesn't mean it is right!" if you truly think that you don't get classification

So you are claiming a classification exists for these things in general that can determine what a remake and a reimagined work is yet cannot provide where this things exists except that it is gamers that somehow have the say here? Idk that sounds pretty much like there is nothing solid that really can cement anything and is a part of the problem from the gamer side because it has to circumvent what creators say.

I mean hell a majority isnt always going to be right and you cant even really prove this is a thing a majority of people are even agreeing with in the first place.

WingsOfGood posted...

first you determine what makes an rpg
then you see if Death Stranding has these

you don't listen to Kojima or care about his intention

so we use the formula provided by the experts that I gave you about what makes a remake vs. a reimagining

it has nothing to do with intention or what Square wants it to be called

that is how classification works

So again where is this classification on rather or not something is a remake versus reimagined work?

WingsOfGood posted...

we are on gamefaqs and you can search rpgs

how do you think that is done?

if Kojima says Death Stranding is an rpg gamefaqs throws it into rpgs?
nope

So where is this classification for what determines what a remake is versus reimagined work?

WingsOfGood posted...

again that is not how classification works

Doubt you saw the edit but where does this classification come from now?

WingsOfGood posted...

intentions of a creator is not how you classify things

It is when it comes to media based things. Hell where exactly are you seeing this classification coming from?

WingsOfGood posted...

Do you understand why classification systems exist?

I do and do you understand that we really dont have much of a system in that sense for games? Or hell really even movies for that matter? Because again intentions of a creator is going to vary widely here.

WingsOfGood posted...

They can design something however they want. That doesn't change the meaning of functional words used for classifying.

This whole remake debate seems to stem from one thing. People who produce this stuff vs. randoms reading webster and not understanding what "new form" means. Most them in bad faith.
That is....hilarious.

"Omg guys it says NEW FORM so a remake can literally be a completely different game!"

No that isn't how it works as the industry and experts have levels of classification.
You go too far you are a re-imagining.

What is a re-imaging? You would have a hard time explaining that as you invalidate the purpose for the terms existence.

Also, the article makes it clear what qualifies for remake by giving examples:

I asked if producers and directors still called anything a remake. They do, Orci confirmed. He listed a few clear examples of remakes from recent years: Gus van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho (1998), James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma (2007), and the Coen brothers' True Grit (2010). They fit the definition from CHUD.com, in that each is a "straight re-telling of a story."

-Shot for shot

-a "straight re-telling of a story."

This is not my interpretation.

And yet the reality is the things you are quoting for one again can apply either way here and two are also coming from someone elses words who again dont speak for everyone creating things. Thats where your bad faith arguments kick in.

WingsOfGood posted...

I didn't make the definitions, and wtf are you on about with interpretations? HOLY

everyone can read what those people say and get it

I don't understand why you want to be contrarian then in this way? Square misused the term, admitting it doesn't hurt you. Just move on.

LOL

You about to say you make movies so you get to redefine the word?

And people can see how you are making this all into an argument of bad faith because again creators have their own say on their design choices and for the term remake it still fits what is happening in FFVII.

WingsOfGood posted...

I gave you the definitions and what the people who make the movies explain are the terms.

You don't like that and just want to use your own.

You gave them sure but you are using your own interpretations in the definitions and another spoiler alert:

Those people that make movies dont speak for everyone who makes movies.

WingsOfGood posted...

It is not what I say, these are established definitions.
The one pretending they are not is you.

You misuse them for your purposes.

And yet you are doing the same thing you claim I do.

WingsOfGood posted...

You don't care about the actual definitions, this is clear now. You just want to win and e-argument and defend Square.

Too bad you lost the moment you sided against the actual meaning of the words.

That irony coming from you.

WingsOfGood posted...

Cinematic Happenings Under Development,

This is discussing with people who actually make this stuff not some guy reading from webster and purposely misunderstanding the word to fit their purpose like you are doing.

Again:

Remake: A straight re-telling of a story for the purpose of updating it for a contemporary audience, or making it accessible to a different culture or region.

A remake implies different actors, new technology, etc. That is the new parts.
It is not a drastic reimagining of the plot.

That is called a:

Re-Imagining: A re-telling of a story, but only in the broadest sense. Characters and some story elements may be retained, but mostly plot and story have been repurposed.

This is industry experts saying this not me. You just want to rewrite already known definitions to fit your narrative.
That is being in bad faith.

Whatever you say, by that logic you are basically just agreeing with one industry person and ignoring the intention of other industry people.

WingsOfGood posted...

Again you deceptively misuse and misunderstand.

Different form relates to how a movie is using new actors NOT that it drastically changes the movie.
See the article presented by the Directors.

And yet creators can have different opinions on things. So if they see it as a remake it will fall under that. Because ultimately that is the intention here and if they are going for double meanings thats fair too.

WingsOfGood posted...

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/dictionary/remakes-reboots-and-reimaginings/

By the definition it is not and cannot be a remake.

But you don't care because you are arguing in bad faith.

And yet outside the additionally story content to the games Remake and Rebirth plays pretty much the same damn story beats as the Original.

Also the fuck is Chud.com?

WingsOfGood posted...

This is extremely bad faith. The word is why it is not a remake and you know it. And it was the first thing brought up.
You are hiding behind some fake understanding or you purposely want to misuse or redefine it for your purpose.
You don't care about what the word means.

And yet

remake
1 of 2
verb
re make ()r-mk

remade ()r-md ; remaking
Synonyms of remake
transitive verb
: to make anew or in a different form

Again words have multiple different meanings and those meanings can also play a part in things.

WingsOfGood posted...

You tried pretending I was asking about the title:

But I asked:

Why would someone in good faith do that? They wouldn't.

You just upset your argument has fallen apart knowing that Rebirth is just a title and therefore Remake is also just a title.

Again if you want to ignore how words work be my guest. People can easily look up what the damn definition for Remake is.

And multiple people can be just as easily wrong because again people want to cling to terms with a more limited look on it just to criticize things.

WingsOfGood posted...

Stop acting in bad faith.
I did not ask if you are ok with it being the title.

I asked if you are ok with it being referred to as what the series is.

It is a Rebirth.
Please stop trying to deceive. It makes your argument weaker than the already shaky ground it began with smh.

You are the one acting in bad faith because it fits the term Remake here. Its just it the remake people wanted.

WingsOfGood posted...

Then you have no problem with the term Rebirth? Only with me using it in this thread?
Or are you being bad faith calling this bad faith because you actually have an issue but want to pretend you don't which would be deceptive and bad faith...smh

I have no problem with it being the title for the secondary entry no but how you are going about it comes off more as a bad faith argument because you are ignoring how bad it would be to call the second Game Remake Part II.

WingsOfGood posted...

Bad faith? Square calls it that just as they called it remake. Strange to defend one and be against the other.
Seems...biased.

Because again you are using this as a bad faith argument. Its less a bias and more calling out your point as just being bad for the sake of being bad.

Probably not? Unless it states it was design for both hot and cold beverages.

WingsOfGood posted...

So you agree the series is a Rebirth?

No because thats a statement you are trying to make in bad faith here.

StealThisSheen posted...

"lol no" nothing. TPC literally does not consider them remakes, officially. You can argue they are, but according to TPC, they are not.

Yes lol unless you have a citation on that one. And also TPC wouldnt even have say on this one it would need to be from Gamefreak.

WingsOfGood posted...

So Rebirth is just...a title but for some reason Remake has to be a thing you have to debate and defend?
Got it.

I guess it would be problematic to assume Rebirth was a term for the game as it means something new and fresh and not a remake of something but completely fresh.

If I called these games a Rebirth you would probably take an issue with that. Many call them a retelling. Because we all know what is going on.

Naw you are just twisting things at this point just to have a point.

StealThisSheen posted...

Let's Go is actually officially not considered a remake.

lol no

mehmeh1 posted...

so does Pokemon ORAS, and arguably Let's Go, but they're still remakes

By the logic most games do that when it comes to how remakes are done but FFVIIR has that bit of a different distinction that still falls under remake anyhow regardless of the continuation part of the remakes. (Even though its not technically even a continuation in the same sense anyhow and more of a potential happening side by side it)

WingsOfGood posted...

Oh so Rebirth is just a title? Only a title?

A title and a double meaning for the theme of the game but ultimately its the sequel to Remake and that already has a double meaning for its title too. Again words do that and there are ways one can play with words.

WingsOfGood posted...

No it can't. The only people who argue this are people hellbent on defending Square's misuse of the word.

But what is Rebirth? Is it a remake or a rebirth?

Yes it can, its literally not even the hardest thing to grasp that it can be both.

And its a title for the second game. Which would be better then calling it Remake Part II

WingsOfGood posted...

I am literally going by how things work and I am not alone here.

And how things word very easily varies based on context. Context wise The FFVII Trilogy of games we are getting can be both a remake and a continuation of the past games.

WingsOfGood posted...

Who are all these people that are being shocked? Are you the lone arbiter of this sacred knowledge?
Maybe think about that for a moment.

No one is shocked by what I said because it is known and true. If what you say is shocking maybe that is because you made it the fuck up.

I mean if you want to ignore how things work go for it. I think most people have used more then one word to describe things and thats what can be seen with video games and remakes/remasters

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not even criticizing FF7R. I fucking love FF7R. It's just, objectively, not a remake, and Square even acknowledged that by calling Part 2 something different, instead of "Remake Part 2."

Thats because calling it Remake Part 2 would have been a stupid thing to do especially with the dual meaning of the word Remake.

WingsOfGood posted...

This is false.
The word has meaning. You pretend it does not and you can just make it mean what you want.

This has nothing to do with whether someone likes or dislikes FF7r.
This has nothing to do with whether someone felt lied to by Square or not.

Facts are facts.

And facts are words have more then one meaning and you can, and this will be a big shock to most people:

Use more then one word to describe things or even build on things!

Which is kind of what gets ignored with these sorts of things and why the term remake shouldnt be this super limited thing that applies to some games and not others. Gamers really more or less made a mess of things when they cant even agree on things based on definitions.