Sheikah

You won't ruin this topic like you do with most.

Hey, he's not 100 for a reason. :p

I have the idea that each card has a special power, yet only once per game can you play a power, and only one. And after you play that particular card. Just an example card I have in mind: Name: Solitanze Quote: "If I increase turnover by 400% and quadruple the market share I might just find a girlfriend" Claim to Fame: 10 (Infamy) Senselessly spamming the front page of N-Europe with imaginary console sales figures. A Date with History: N/A - (don't think he ever signed up...or did he?) Tastleless spam: 98 (King) Nobody does it better. Force the darkside: -24 (Lackey) Reggie's brother, the one his parents don't talk about. One time use special power: "He's not with me": Solitanze's lack of charisma rubs off on the opponent: the opponent suffers -30 to the Claim to Fame stat of his card, until after he/she battles with that attribute once.

Definitely playing a game with them afterwards. There's always a really crap card in every Top Trumps...maybe Stewie? :p I really like the sound of making some sort of special power, perhaps affinities for cards. For instance, a card attribute could be bad but against a certain other card would effectively be doubled.

I think you would go quite high up on the force side (good). You just don't seem to have an angry bone in your body, lol.

Hi all, I know someone made some Pokemon cards for players before, but I was thinking more along the line of making Top Trumps, where there would be a defined set of, say, 6 or 7 values for each forumer. Perhaps I could throw in some complexities such as special powers or event cards, too. Most of all, I'd like it to be a playable game between forumers. For those who've never played, one player plays a card and states which attribute they are fighting with (e.g. height). Then the second player must play a card that beats this to win that round. I made this topic here since I'm basically just getting ideas right now. Once a sufficient number of these had been made, I could PM two players at a time a list of image URLs to individual cards (or someone else if someone would like to be a helper - in fact that would be a really good idea). That way you couldn't just use any card you wanted since the issuer would see an image URL that wasn't one they dished out. I'd like any ideas you might have on gameplay/rounds, most of all card attributes. I've been thinking of some potential attributes: Claim to fame: <description> <number> For instance, the most popular topic/event associated with a member (e.g. KingV virginity) plus a number up to 100, depending on how epic that particular event was. Supreme power Perhaps something to do with the 'power' you command on the forums (position). This would create a few 'high power' cards in this attribute, since there's far fewer admin/staff than there are regular members. A date with history This would basically be when the person originally signed up to any of this forum's iterations. Tasteless spam This would calculated by some sort of ratio of rubbish to not rubbish posts, or just down-right lack of decency. A little controversial, but hopefully a bit of fun. Force the darkside Perhaps from a stat of 0 (a fairly neutral, carefree guy) to someone who is known to do good things (50) or seem like an evil kind of guy (-50). -40 would beat 30, for instance. I'm sure there could be better ideas, suggestions are welcome. Or anyone offering to help, or if you think it's a good idea/sucks then tell me what I could improve. Cheers.

Well I guess it's a case of selectively caring for me. I tend to care about things that I genuinely believe I can make a difference in (as I'm sure people fighting for the environment do). But I'm not convinced. I don't think I could rally enough people to my cause to impact change, whereas giving blood actually saves lives for definite. That's just me.

I typed that initally, then realised he wasn't a moderator and that I could have sworn I had Dan T Philips on MSN once. 84. Braeburn. And for a treat here's the exact image!

69. I found this out by pure fluke: What did I do? Phil/Philip = Happenstance's name Not sure if he's classed as a mod but I'll go with Dan Dare (Dan T Phillips). If there is someone else official with the surname Philip/Philips then I'm just really unlucky. :p 84. I'll go with.... Cox!

I like this debate about consciousness, it's interesting. What about a person who is truly dead (e.g. for over a day)? They don't have any brain activity. And they definitely aren't conscious. But consciousness is just a mix of several brain regions activated at once. e.g. sound, sight, language, etc. This can be proven be damaging particular regions of the brain. A stroke commonly does this - it affects one side of the brain, and takes sensory regions associated with that part with it (or makes them less effective). So really, consciousness; being alive and alert with your senses is the function of an active brain. And when you're dead, it's gone. The clear factor here though is 'near death'. Having been alive so close to these events must be a factor for why the brain is stil partially active. You wouldn't find an active brain in a person long dead, that's for sure. And if a dead person can't see, feel, touch, speak or sense anything at all, how is that conscious?

If there was a machine invasion there may also be a machine that we can send back in time to stop it from happening, so that. Whereas with zombies, they pretty much take over the Earth through biting people.

The attitude may not please you, and I can understand why. But at the end of the day, it boils down to this - the positive aspect of an individual choosing not to eat meat will be monumentally dwarved by pollution elsewhere in the world. You may well argue it's worth trying anyway, but I don't believe so. Not because I'm negative, it's simply because I don't believe in putting effort into something that will make absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things. And it's annoying, because I'd like to make a difference, but with countries spilling fumes into the atmosphere there is nothing that any of us can really do to stop the atmosphere getting worse year on year. Our individual outputs compared to that of factories are horrendously miniscule. Contrast this to going to Africa and working as an aid worker, where you do make a very big difference to people's lives. That's all I was getting at - a lot of effort for something that won't actually save the planet (proven in part, by the fact he said he was buying a car - although we can individually reduce the carbon footprint, the only way any real impact could be brought about is through legislation). I guess the annoying thing is that if you cut out meat and therefore contribute less to CO2 from animal rearing/transport, but then use your car every day you're doing far more bad than good.

lol, lets. Careful we don't hug zombies though, that could end badly.

Well I apologise. Didn't mean to come across as "do this", rather meant to suggest he could carry on doing some of the things he liked rather than sacrifice them.

Yeah but that was because of my opinion; that doing those things couldn't make a difference (probably true on the grand scale of things) so I said there may not be much point in ethically sourcing food etc. :P Plus I more or less meant it for extreme things, like drastically changing diet and whatnot. I was basically trying to tell guy not to worry to much about these things and carry on doing some of the things that give you pleasure! Otherwise that topic was pretty much a 'one answer' topic, like you can only answer 'yes all those things are wonderful so go do them'. Not really a question in the topic title then. :/ Notice Tissue Town thought similarly, it's not just me!

I was only answering the guy's question in that other topic "Can one person make a difference". It was only my opinion (nothing snide about it).

I dunno, the co-op is only like the co-op Ashley sections in RE4 except not annoying in any way since you're not responsible for the other person. It's really one of those 'play it to see it' kind of things. When you're playing single player, you're still actually alone (as in no real person) and the NPC isn't stupid. You're mostly only using her for inventory purposes (which is nice) and to pull off moves like leg ups. As for the old school RE...I really liked the change. I think a lot did, hence RE4 was so loved. The old RE format was quite stale, and there was so much I didn't like about it. The puzzle solving often required you picking stuff up and using it waaay later, or constantly going through the same areas again and again. It wasn't bad, but I just didn't enjoy it as much as RE4 (like when you're trying to avoid getting your head chainsawed off, that was great).

Exactly. I must have a great sense of humour to call you hilarious.

I would have to say "most games". They make lots more games that are fun to play these days, and many games of a very high standard. In contrast, in the past they seemed to have many low-quality games but also some absolute gems. I'm thinking of old Final Fantasy games, Zelda (up to N64), Chrono Trigger. A little of this is to do with nostalgia and redundancy, though. Like how sequel after sequel has dulled me to the new games, or maybe I'm just not as impressionable. But those games will likely never be bested for me.

lol ReZ; you really don't want to ask me that question. This is you we're talking about. And don't worry, I already know the answer. You don't, because you think you're hilarious.

Clinically dead people aren't really dead if they are conscious...clearly. If by clinically dead you mean no pulse/heartbeat, they're clearly on their last seconds of life. Not sure where you're getting that from though. I think you've picked up some really strange ideas about consciousness, when clearly it's the result of having a complete body (you can't be conscious without a brain, try removing someone's brain and see what happens). Also, for your evidence, please source to an accredited journal paper. Think of it like this. You agree that a newborn baby can see, feel and touch, right? Well that baby was made completely in the mother's womb, from the mother's own 'building blocks', if you will (plus DNA from the father). Thus, it's obvious that however consciousness is formed, it is formed as part of the human body and definitely part of the brain. A baby born without a brain would not only be unconscious, it'd be dead (obviously). So consider what the mother has eaten, to provide protein among other 'building blocks' to form a baby. These are things that were in the vicinity of the mother; in order for them to construct part of a living being they would have to be directly accessible to the mother. As in, definitely within the solar system at least. There's really no two ways about this, because we've followed the development of animals in vivo; you can see an animal grow, with nutrients typically derived from the placenta (at least in mammals); these are clearly used for growth, etc.

The apocalypse doesn't end, humanity does. :p

Any chance we can answer a new lot today? *puppy dog eyes*

It could be that the limits imposed on humans are ignored once zombie. Messages to stop running (due to pain), sleep, etc, may be ignored, until the zombie literally collapses. Or maybe the body changes in such a way that sleep is no longer required; just eating flesh to produce the energy.

Everything will expire when the universe does. Thus, know. :p One thing we know for certain is that consciousness is a result of an active brain. When you're unconscious the brain is less active, and we can actively induce unconsciousness. A brain itself is composed of atoms; although we don't know how every cell in your body contributes to consciousness, it's pretty much certainly due to arrangements of atoms rather than magic. Also when a mother is pregnant, a baby is literally synthesised from atoms derived from the mother, so we know that in order to create life one must have atoms actually in the vicinity of where the life is being made. So the whole 'we might be born in another galaxy' thing seems completely contrived. Unless the atoms that compose you can...shift, like in star trek.