Conquering Storm's Servant

TSS Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Conquering Storm's Servant last won the day on June 16 2014

Conquering Storm's Servant had the most liked content!

About Conquering Storm's Servant

  • Rank
    Don't Demand Sympathy And Refuse to Give it In Return
  • Birthday 05/31/91

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Country
    United States
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Ask me first. And even then, don't expect me to give it right off the bat.
  • Steam
  • XBL
  • PSN
    to be made

Recent Profile Visitors

54494 profile views
  1. Yes. But every character has been a gag character a number of times, even (especially) Shadow. Doesn't make them less of who they are, it just gives them more levity to make them more enjoyable.
  2. Felt like Blaze to me. Plus, that wasn't Ian who wrote that arc. And being from Sol can complicate things depending on what Ian wants to do with her. Can't just rip her from her dimension that easily and expect it to work, especially for someone who plots things like Ian.
  3. What's there to "not get?" She's a pyrokinetic princess of the Sol Dimension who guards the Sol Emeralds and the Jeweled Scepter, one who tends to be stoic and dutiful while initially standoffish to those she's not sure to trust but willing to offer help to those she can. She's a lot like Sonic with more responsibilities and less of a drifter (okay, maybe more like Shadow and Knuckles when phrased that way, but you get the idea). I'm sure Ian gets Blaze and cares enough about her to have around, he either just doesn't know where to take her or hasn't found a place to fit her story. Which isn't hard to see given how little detail there is about Blaze's world to work with without making something up for it. Again, that sounds like a matter of pacing on Ian's end, not a lack of care. And where did he say he didn't want to bring Blaze from her dimension? He already did that once, then brought other characters her dimension twice.
  4. That's less neglect and usually something to do with pacing and material. Characters have been getting focus based on what they can contribute, whether their contributions can support the story they're in without being a hassle (because believe it or not, writing ain't as easy as you'd think), whether there's even room for their presence or stories, and if there's material they have that can benefit it. In fact, I think that's one reason why he said he kept Blaze on the backburner until now for one of the upcoming Universe issues. If there's one thing about Ian that I like, he makes sure nothing can go to waste if he can avoid it (even if he isn't perfect about executing it, like the SWC's rushed arcs post World's Unite). But he has been making use of game characters given his recent use of the Chaotix.
  5. Yes, I do care about those characters. But what I'm saying applies to literally every character regardless, not just them.
  6. The Iron Queen being badly written--a very arguable claim for her return in 2009--is beside the point tho. She had a long absence and wasn't expect to have anything new until Ian gave her something more worthwhile. That can be done for just about any character at any point in time. Long story short, never assume a character's story is done.
  7. You don't know that. No one does except for the people writing the comics. There's no telling whether they'll get some huge development or not, especially give how little we know past the solicts we've been given. But that doesn't mean their stories are done, which the whole point I'm making. Because prior to these delays, we don't know what Ian has in store for Rotor, or any character in the future past what has already been detailed (provided the comics aren't cancelled). So it's best not to assume that a character has nothing given how that can very easily change at any point in time, and that's all the more reason why you shouldn't declare a character's story as "done." Take the Iron Queen back in the old continuity. She first appeared in issue 60 in 1998, and never appeared again until Ian reused her in 2009--a whopping 10+ years of absence before she was given a new story. Prior to then, one could have said the same thing, but Ian showed otherwise. We should know better than to assume a character is done and have nothing else.
  8. Yeah, I was really hoping Antoine wouldn't die for one. I wouldn't have been frothing at Ian if he did, because at that point Antoine was very heavily developed and his death would really change a lot in many ways. That said, I'm glad he stayed alive.
  9. No offense, dude. But people really need to stop saying this, because it's not true for any character. When a character's story is done, they can be given a new one later. It's one thing if a writer decides to end that character's role or presence permanently and say their story is done (or backpedal/retcon on that for whatever reason), but beyond that there's no such thing as a character having little to do--that's usually either a case of the writer lessening the role for other characters before doing something with them later or a fault of the writer who doesn't know what to do with them, something which is rarely the case with Ian given that he always gives any character he can something to work with and builds the world to a point where he can make a greater use of that character's presence later down the line. This is double for Antoine and Bunnie since they were scheduled to get individual Universe arcs before the series got delayed, which is far from being done and having little to do else they wouldn't have gotten one. A character with little to do now might be given more in the future, so it's best not to write off characters like that.
  10. "How is Jon in anyway racist...?" Well for starters, how about the part where he said the richest black man commits more crimes than the poorest white man? Or about "diluting" the goddamn gene pool with people outside a certain racial group? How in the blue fuck is that stuff not racist?
  11. I'm more interested in Forces than Mania mainly because of the potentially meatier story and more intense narrative. That and I want it to be successful so that it diminishes this whole "Sonic can't be dark" nonsense that seems to have picked up pace since Pontaff got their start in Colors/Generations, and I want to see if they might prove us wrong actually change things up here given what they've experimented with in Lost Worlds. It doesn't help that because Mania is far from looking anything bad, it's rather predictable by comparison in what it's going to do, so there's not much of a surprise or anything new for me to be on edge for.
  12. Depends on whether or not you're looking at it in hindsight. The Adventures were considered great right up until people considered they aged poorly, but that's something the more hardcore crowd makes a point about.
  13. Christ, I was just gone for an hour... Yes, you are. And it's funny, because you did just that when I clarified myself the first time and are going on a completely different tangent. No, that doesn't mean if the games were good then the story is better. That's a black and white fallacy if there is one as games like Generations have shown that people will still call out a poor story even in good games. Like really, the stories in ShTH and Sonic 06 were considered bad. Yes, there are people out there that like them, but that doesn't change the general consensus, and even if their gameplay was good that wouldn't make the story any better. You even said that yourself, you then continued to repeat that, and then you discredited yourself by saying that there were people who would find certain aspects good, and not once did I ever make these implications for you to even bring them up in the first place. So I'm sorry, but you are really just arguing for the sake of arguing here. It's less that I don't want to argue than it is I don't like my point twisted and minced into something else, particularly when the person I'm arguing with is essentially repeating just about the same thing I've already said and treating my point like it means something completely different just for the sake of arguing. Much less going on a different tangent, which is why I've been repeating myself to get back to the original point I made and keep it that way. It really stands out when you continue to pad this whole argument by bringing up youtube comments (of all things) and personal friends as if to discredit what I said, when that really doesn't change the general point I made from the beginning. But as far as this whole thing goes, at this point don't want to argue. Not on this debacle--I want you to take my point for what it is, and not a single thing beyond that. Because the irony in my point was that it didn't counter your initial rebuttal from the get go. EDIT--"Your point is wrong"...uh-huh, yeah, whatever dude.
  14. I like how you've completely changed the entire argument into something entirely different here and are now contradicting yourself over how people consider these parts good when you also claimed they were calling them bad in your last posts. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing here... Then you've been mincing words the entire time, because once again, no where did I say that those stories were any good and that people would like them. Not once. That was something you came up with and strawmanned as something i said.
  15. No where did I even say or imply that, dude. Now you're just making strawmans. So basically, basically what people are made about is the gameplay, and as a result practically everything else was considered bad along with it. Again, the same thing I said from the beginning, dude. So why are you this dead set on arguing over this? Which is practically strawmaning. How about you not do that in return, because you're kinda are being rather argumentative over a simple statement saying that the bad gameplay magnified the other bad parts of the game.