Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

270 Excellent


About Paige-ID

  • Rank
    Premium Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Andrea <3

Recent Profile Visitors

1,473 profile views
  1. You said "why would anyone use their CC instead?", to which I replied why I think you should use a credit card. You're stating an anecdotal occurrence where you can get a good deal on PSN cards—that's not really a counter-argument against the general use of a credit card in the PlayStation Store. It seems like a lot of people believe their finances are at risk using the PlayStation Store, and that's simply not true. It's a shame that you're not eligible for the PS Visa card, which is a much better deal than 2-3%. It's effectively a 10% rewards card as long as you use it in the PSN, not a 1%.
  2. Because, against popular fear-mongering belief, credit cards are the most secure method of paying. Even on the PSN. Paying the waiter or waitress at Outback Steakhouse with a card is technically MUCH more dangerous than the PlayStation Store. They also (potentially) come with an entourage of rewards. As much as I'm not a fan of Capital One, the Playstation Visa (especially the Signature version) is great for PSN purchases. You get 10 points for every $1 you spend in the PSN store, which adds up pretty fast. Especially if you buy everything digital. One could even use the card to also pay for cellular bills to gain even more bonus points, but that's just extra. As long as your credit limit exceeds $5,000, you'll get the Signature version, which is a prime card. If you use a good credit card (American Express, Discover, any Chase Visa, etc) then you're more secure than anything else. Any fraudulent activity is picked up instantly, money is never stolen, you're never responsible for fraudulent charges, excellent benefits, excellent reward structures, great for building credit, etc. Even in the rare event that someone hacks the PSN and steals your credit card information, the issuer simply cancels the card and issues you a new one while simultaneously not making you pay for anything you weren't responsible for. Unless you're bad with money, there is no good reason not to use credit cards for just about everything.
  3. Rainbow Moon felt like a freemium iOS game with cheap animations, horrendous voice acting, and repetitive gameplay designed to suck hours out of your life as opposed to give you meaningful entertainment. The story of Rainbow Moon was utter garbage, the characters ridiculous, the writing was very poorly translated into English, and every single quest revolved around "get me X items". Every single one. But it was oddly enticing at times to play. Just like a cheap phone game. Hopefully this one will be better.
  4. This is honestly not a testament to the quality of the game. Just a person who experienced PTSD due to witnessing a fictional event that triggered traumatic memories of her own. It could've been a coloring book, a TV ad, a story someone else told her, or just random reminiscence while entering her childhood home. Tragic, yet not really related to the game, honestly.
  5. Some of the challenges. I couldn't quite make out the rest, though this gives some insight as to what kind of difficulty level the challenges are eyeballing. A lot of challenges have a "launch" button, meaning the conditions have been set up already and you can try it immediately using a pre-determined save state. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine — Starting in the middle of a game, get a score of at least 4,000. Beyond Oasis — Defeat the crab nabber using just the dagger. Columns — Starting using the provided mid-game save, get to a score of 5,000. Shadow Dancer — Complete stage 1-2 with the dog in its puppy state. Space Harrier 2 — Complete stage 1 without losing a life. Sonic the Hedgehog — Complete Green Hill Zone Act 2 in mirror mode in under 1 minute. Streets of Rage — Finish stage 1 with a full bar of health. The revenge of Shinobi — Complete the first level with just one health bar remaining. Streets of Rage 2 — Complete stage 2 without picking up any items. Streets of Rage 3 — Beat the twin bosses at the end of stage 2 with just 10% (or less) health remaining. Shining Force — Make it to alterome with no more than 1 team member dying in battle. Ristar — Complete planet flora round 1 without taking damage. Golden Axe — Take on level 8 of the duel and win as Gilius Thunderhead, but your health is low. Golden Axe 2 — Defeat the second boss while playing as Ax Battler, but using no magic or continues. Golden Axe 3 — Beat the 2 minotaurs without using a continue. Flicky — Complete round 10 in under 2 minutes. Crack Down — Finish stage 1 act 3 with at least 1:50 left. Vectorman 2 — Collect all 123 photons on level 2. Virtua Fighter 2 — Take control of Kage-Maru and perform an epic comeback to win the fight. Comix Zone — Win the kung fung tournament, but your health bar is looking low.
  6. The new price would make it roughly $9.92/month vs the current $8.25/month. So I guess for some people, the $1.67 extra a month is just pushing the monthly budget way past its boundaries? Or is it a situation where you have to draw the line somewhere? It seems that if you cancel it based on the new price that you're really just canceling it because you've been forced to consider if the service is something you use at all. There is simply no way that you find the service perfectly fine at $8.25, but too expensive at $9.92. That cannot be applied rationally in anyone's monthly budget. Especially when you consider things people essentially "waste" money on. Picking carry-out over delivery on one single pizza order would already cover the monthly change for 2 entire months. If $1.67 truly puts you over your monthly limit, then you need a financial advisor or someone that knows a bit more about money to help you out.
  7. If you wake up in the morning and think to yourself that the murder of innocent civilians is perfectly acceptable, then what video game you play, what song you listen to, what you ate last night, what weapon you love using, what car you drive, or what beverage you prefer all becomes completely irrelevant. I think more people have been killed over Monopoly or Risk than video games. That can take hours—especially if Aunt Bethany is a little slow in the head—and to then suddenly have to go to jail, without passing start, without collecting $20,000, after 9 hours of that shit? I don't think so.
  8. If you look at Konami from a business perspective, their moves in the past kind of make sense. If you look at it from an emotional standpoint, it becomes a little shadier.
  9. ITT: people that really care what you do in your spare time with single-player video games that you bought. I can see why one would find cheating in any way, shape, or form annoying when it comes to multiplayer. Afterall, that has the potential to directly impact your enjoyment. But single-player offline games? Please. We used to have Game Genie, cheat codes, tricks, glitches, patches, trainers, hacks, etc. Nobody gave two rat's asses about it because it was all about having fun. When did it suddenly become serious business involving the debate about ethics and morals?
  10. Disney won't change R-rated movies. Bob Iger has personally stated this. Not to mention, have people seen the Punisher? Disney is most definitely not against R/MA ratings. Starship Troopers, Bad Santa, Enemy of the State; all Disney published. They're not just into making cartoons and family-friendly fun. They're into what makes money. Buy Disney shares while they're still relatively low vs the rest of the market!
  11. I think you're getting kind of lost in your own thoughts here. It's very simple. Difficulty in the English language is skill and/or effort required to accomplish a goal. Not how much. Not how little. Just those two. You can either accept that or not. Someone can, therefore, find something difficult when said action took that person a long time. A person claiming walking from Texas to Kentucky is difficult is not "wrong", nor have they misused the term "difficult". It took him or her effort, so the choice of words is correct. Very simple. There's no need for a long-winded thesis on something so mundane. This website, however, decided that as a rule, you will have to suspend your disbelief and consider 'difficulty' as skill-based only. That's it. They are fully within their right to do so, but it comes with the baggage of confusing a lot of people who then need to be brought up to speed on the local informal terminology. Those confused people are not wrong in what they're saying; they're just not following the locally-established slang and rules. Or as you prefer; the colloquial way of speaking around these parts. It's sometimes discouraging to see people immediately hammer down on those that "conflate" skill-based difficulty with time consumption. How were they supposed to know that in this particular neck of the woods, we define things differently from the rest of the world? That doesn't impede this website from enforcing their terminology—I encourage it even due to the consistency it brings—but I do think we should have a tolerance for those that are not "in the know", including maybe a disclaimer of some sort at times.
  12. You're confusing definition with interpretation. One comes after the other. The definition, what I argued, is set in stone. There's no context to that. A word simply means something. How you then further discuss the impact said definition has on you based on your personal skill level, life choices, time investment, what not, is completely variable. I never contested that. Language evolves (or rather, devolves) through slang. The actual language stays quite grounded. I highly doubt that the PlayStation userbase is going to forever alter the definition of the word 'difficult' because of Platinum ratings. Locally-accepted slang is one thing, claiming that it is akin to the evolution of language is another. If you call something a Post-It, but it's not the Post-It brand, then someone could factually call you out on it. Is it pedantic to do so? Yes. But the person isn't wrong. A common misuse of a word is not an evolution of the language. It's simply a common mistake. Difficulty simply means skill and/or effort. Not the severity thereof, or lack thereof. Just the fact that either skill, effort, or both can play a role. Take it up with Oxford if you want this changed; I didn't invent this. The consequence is that the majority of English-speaking players have adapted this official meaning of the word, and are then confused when they are told their personal effort is irrelevant to the difficulty. It causes confusion, and understandably so. Technically speaking, every action you perform in life has a difficulty level. The amount of skill or effort is irrelevant. Someone claiming that a 500-hour task was difficult is not wrong. He or she is therefore not wrong when claiming the difficulty of a game was high due to the time invested. The context is only relevant to your personal interpretation of just how much skill and effort something takes. Something might be effortless for you, but not for someone else. That's the context. Nobody's difficulty rating can speak for someone else's personal interpretation, but saying that effort has nothing to do with the word 'difficult' is factually wrong. The proper way of explaining this is that this particular website does not count time spent in the difficulty rating, and that difficulty is only measured by the amount of required skill. It's a temporary suspension of disbelief due to the liberty that was taken with English words; something that needs to be clarified in order to avoid confusion.
  13. In the English language, the word difficult means 'something that requires a lot of effort or skill to accomplish, understand, or deal with'. There is no personal interpretation or anything of the sorts when it comes to definitions. Red isn't blue because someone wills it hard enough. However, one can request from their visitors to suspend their disbelief and that on this particular website, red means blue. There's nothing anyone can say about that, really. Just don't expect people to understand automatically without question. When you claim that difficulty cannot involve effort, you are factually incorrect. Yes, it can. I'd say spending 600 hours on monotonous battle trophies while enduring SO4's terrible characters and cutscenes qualifies as something that requires a lot of effort to deal with. It doesn't require a lot of skill, perse, but definitely an effort. The difficulty of SO4's platinum can, therefore, be rated as high as 10/10. Unless you wish to take liberty with the actual meaning of the word, then you can impose limitations as much as you want. If the difficulty scale is solely skill-based, then perhaps split the 'Difficulty' aspect into 'Skill Required to obtain 100%' and 'Time required to 100%'. You know, to avoid confusion. I'd be pretty pissed off if a 3/10 or 4/10 platinum turned out to take 600+ hours.
  14. Or having to kill 55 certain boss creatures with Faze, or whatever his name was. I recall the battle trophies to be monotonous and as poorly conceived as the dialog in this game. Nothing challenging. Just pure monotony.
  15. Dear Lord. Sarah and Lymle in 4K...