PS4 owners, rejoice! Just today, Square Enix has released a demo for the upcoming Final Fantasy VII Remake! This demo allows gamers to play through the opening chapter of the game, as well as the events of the iconic Mako Reactor 1 bombing mission.

Moreover, those who download the demo before May 11, 2020 will also receive an exclusive PlayStation 4 theme when the full game launches next month!

​

In FINAL FANTASY VII REMAKE, players will be drawn into a world where the Shinra Electric Power Company, a shadowy corporation, controls the planet’s very life force. Cloud Strife, a former member of Shinra’s elite SOLDIER unit now turned mercenary, lends his aid to an anti-Shinra organisation calling themselves Avalanche. The first game in the project is set in the city of Midgar, and is a fully standalone gaming experience designed for RPG players that crave unforgettable characters, a powerful story and the ability to choose their style of play with a battle system that merges thrilling real-time action with strategic, command-based combat.

Head to the PlayStation Store right now to try out the demo. Final Fantasy VII Remake releases on April 10, 2020.

SOURCE: GBAtemp Inbox
PlayStation Store Demo Link

 

[FGFlann]

Well... With a bit of "fantasy"... Lol... you can look at it this way....
Script from the original game when you go in 7th Heaven basement:

President Shinra
.........today the No. 1 Reactor was bombed. The terrorist group AVALANCHE has claimed responsibility for the bombing.
It is expected that AVALANCHE will continue its reign of terror.
But citizens of Midgar, there is no need to fear.
I have immediately mobilized SOLDIER to protect our citizenry against this senseless violence. Thank you and good night.

Jessie
Oops...
Hey, look at the news... What a blast.
Think it was all because of my bomb? But all I really did was just make it like the computer told me.
Oh no! I must've made a miscalculation somewhere.
Hey, that was my bomb's debut. Makes me kinda proud.

When you return to 7th Heaven and you talk to Jessie in the basement, she will tell you that the bomb shouldn't have made all that damage... And when you go to reactor 5 the president will show up, meaning that he already knew their movements (everyone is surprised that he's even there).

Now.... "off course"(cit.) this is a very stretched theory buy maybe even in the original it was implied that Shinra played a role in Sector 1 bombing from behind the scene.

It's a fine theory, I agree. I prefer to judge works objectively by what is present in the game/movie/book. When you start speculating you can go almost anywhere.

 

[tabzer]

If something is functionally "a troll" but is not intentionally a troll, it cannot be one

We disagree. Even if people are unaware that they are doing it doesn't mean that they aren't doing it. Though, I've heard some say that unintentionally trolling is just being a moron. I still see it as trolling, subconsciously or intentionally.

 

[FGFlann]

We disagree. Even if people are unaware that they are doing it doesn't mean that they aren't doing it. Though, I've heard some say that unintentionally trolling is just being a moron. I still see it as trolling, subconsciously or intentionally.

If we can't agree on terms as defined then the discussion isn't going to go any further. I will say though, the actual definition of trolling is more applicable to you making the accusation than it is to supershadow64ds' very inoffensive and on-topic comments about the game.

 

[tabzer]

If we can't agree on terms as defined then the discussion isn't going to go any further. I will say though, the actual definition of trolling is more applicable to you making the accusation than it is to supershadow64ds' very inoffensive and on-topic comments about the game.

No it's not, because according to you, you don't know intention. You are incapable of determining if trolling is even a real thing because you can't read minds. You took it a step further by re-inventing what was actually said.

Are you trolling or a moron?

 

[FGFlann]

No it's not, because according to you, you don't know intention. You are incapable of determining if trolling is even a real thing because you can't read minds. You took it a step further by re-inventing what was actually said.

Are you trolling or a moron?

I said it applies more in your case than the other, not that you were definitely doing it. The takeaway here is that we should not jump to conclusions based on no evidence. Judging by the way you react, in your case it may simply be that you are incivil.

 

[tabzer]

I said it applies more in your case than the other, not that you were definitely doing it.

By what non-existing metric?

The takeaway here is that we should not jump to conclusions based on no evidence.

Yes. I hope you learned your lesson.

Judging by the way you react, in your case it may simply be that you are incivil.

You spent a good part of the day talking to me about something you claim you can't know. I entertained it. That was being civil.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but...

*fill in the blanks with a genuine concern with your lack of mental faculty*

 

[FGFlann]

By what non-existing metric?

By the definition of being a troll.

"a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”

By the actual metric of the definition you are a massively successful troll.

You can be as sassy as you like, you can't erase the fact that you launched the entire tangent by making the accusation, unfairly, instead of engaging with the poster with a legitimate discussion about the game itself. Whatever your intentions may have been, you are still the responsible party.

 

[tabzer]

You have been trolling me about calling someone a troll. I was accurate. I was fair. His point was not legitimate. You have to literally reinvent it see it as so. The both of us, baiting/trolling each other, does not make my initial claim false. You are trying to be both objective and subjective and it is not graceful.

 

[FGFlann]

You have been trolling me about calling someone a troll. I was accurate. I was fair. His point was not legitimate. You have to literally reinvent it see it as so. The both of us, trolling each other, does not make my initial claim false. You are trying to be both objective and subjective and it is not graceful.

No, you were not accurate. Not even close. The post was legitimate discussion about the game which you could have engaged with but chose not to. Others did, while you made a personal attack and forced the poster to defend themselves on personal grounds.

 

[tabzer]

No, you were not accurate. Not even close. The post was legitimate discussion about the game which you could have engaged with but chose not to. Others did, while you made a personal attack and forced the poster to defend themselves on personal grounds.

I was accurate. The post was an ironic and illegitimate misrepresentation of facts, which I rightly called a troll. His choice to engage with me about that, instead of responding to the genuine interest of others, only provided further validation. It wasn't a personal attack. It is by cowardice and insecurity that it is taken as such. I suppose you suffer the same insecurity. You aren't a hero.

 

[FGFlann]

I was accurate. The post was an ironic and illegitimate misrepresentation of facts, which I rightly called a troll. His choice to engage with me about that, instead of responding to the genuine interest of others, only provided further validation. It wasn't a personal attack. It is by cowardice and insecurity that it is taken as such. I suppose you suffer the same insecurity. You aren't a hero.

You're doing it right now. You are attacking my character to supplement your argument. I know I can't force any kind of introspection upon you, doubtless it was folly to even try. Nice tacit admission that the accusation was bait, though. It's definitely their fault that you chose to get personal instead of engaging with the point.

 

[tabzer]

You're doing it right now. You are attacking my character to supplement your argument. I know I can't force any kind of introspection upon you, doubtless it was folly to even try. Nice tacit admission that the accusation was bait, though. It's definitely their fault that you chose to get personal instead of engaging with the point.

The initial criticism was based on observation. The insecurity and cowardice came through via personalized projection in reaction. What I said, originally, "wasn't charitable". That was your complaint. Trying to enforce charity, especially of your own brand, is a fallacy. If you feed me cowardice and insecurity, is it actually an attack to call it by name?

 

[FGFlann]

The initial criticism was based on observation. The insecurity and cowardice came through via personalized projection in reaction. What I said, originally, "wasn't charitable". That was your complaint. Trying to enforce charity, especially of your own brand, is a fallacy. If you feed me cowardice and insecurity, is it actually an attack to call it by name?

"Enforcing charity" isn't a fallacy. It isn't even something I've attempted to do, what are you talking about? Do you know what a fallacy is? "Uncharitable" is a description of your behaviour toward another poster. The fact that the criticism was based on observation was what I originally attempted to address, and that I believed your observation was in error. This is well established by now. Everything else is meaningless. Cowardice? Insecurity? Who can prove any of that? It's just more ad-hom, so leave it in the gutter where it belongs.

 

[tabzer]

"Enforcing charity" isn't a fallacy.

Most certainly is. You can't force people to volunteer something you want. It is a contradiction of terms.

I believed your observation was in error. This is well established by now

The only thing that you used to support your claim was taking something that wasn't said, and using it to replace what was said. Even then, the words you manufactured weren't exactly free of the burden, either.

Everything else is meaningless. Cowardice? Insecurity? Who can prove any of that? It's just more ad-hom, so leave it in the gutter where it belongs.

Those are traits inherent in reacting defensively/emotionally. It's not like I could even give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend they don't exist. It is unfortunate, but those are what were offered in response instead of any form of accountability or, if necessary, correction. My commentating on them is not a part of the argument. It is apart of the discussion.

 

[FGFlann]

Most certainly is. You can't force people to volunteer something you want. It is a contradiction of terms.

???????? That's just a lie. It is not logically inconsistent to demand something of someone. It's just called... a demand. It isn't even a contradiction of terms on my end since it is YOUR assertion that I am "demanding charity", lol. I think it's more likely that you just got caught with your pants down not knowing what a fallacy is. ¬_¬

We never even got to the supporting stage of the conversation. It derailed at this post.

The rest is nonsense, it engages nothing and provides nothing. Not worth addressing ad-hom.

 

[tabzer]

If someone acts due to force, it is not volunteered. You cannot "force" someone to "volunteer". Please stop being crazy.

We never even got to the supporting stage of the conversation. It derailed at this post.

"The supporting stage" of what? The argument was dead the moment you decided to rely on a fake story you made up as some sort of evidence that what happened didn't happen. It's all been conjecture since then. You like to say ad-hom, but why? Is that a defensive mechanism you have in place so you don't have to deal with unpleasant details?

 

[FGFlann]

If someone acts due to force, it is not volunteered. You cannot "force" someone to "volunteer". Please stop being crazy.

Dude, this is unbelievable. It is YOUR contradiction, not mine. This is projection of the highest order. Nobody is demanding charity of you, you simply were uncharitable in your assessment. It doesn't get any deeper than that.

"The supporting stage" of what? The argument was dead the moment you decided to rely on a fake story you made up as some sort of evidence that what happened didn't happen. It's all been conjecture since then. You like to say ad-hom, but why? Is that a defensive mechanism you have in place so you don't have to deal with unpleasant details?

The part where you explain to me how exactly you perceived the things you did. So that I may understand you. Conjecture is the best we can hope for unless you actually explain yourself, which you would have done if you could actually justify it.

Yes, argument to the man, an actual fallacy. You are addressing your perception of my character and the character of supershadow64ds instead of the issue at hand. It is the most basic of dishonest debate tactics.

 

[tabzer]

"Enforcing charity" isn't a fallacy.

You said it. I said the opposite is true.

The part where you explain to me how exactly you perceived the things you did. So that I may understand you. Conjecture is the best we can hope for unless you actually explain yourself, which you would have done if you could actually justify it.

You wanted me to rewrite history, on some sort of personal level so that you could make an objective situation more personal and subjective, so that you could continue to intervene. That's cultish.

You are addressing your perception of my character and the character of supershadow64ds instead of the issue at hand.

You called a blatant misrepresentation of well-established fact a "bad opinion" to diminish the claim that a troll was a troll. The only issue I have is that the guy was so lazy. Your issue was that I am not the quality of charitable that you prefer. What do you want from me?

 

[FGFlann]

You said it. I said the opposite is true.



You wanted me to rewrite history, on some sort of personal level so that you could make an objective situation more personal and subjective, so that you could continue to intervene. That's cultish.



You called a blatant misrepresentation of well-established fact a "bad opinion" to diminish the claim that a troll was a troll. The only issue I have is that the guy was so lazy. Your issue was that I am not the quality of charitable that you prefer. What do you want from me?

You're still wrong. It's not a fallacious argument. It's not even an argument I made. It's not an argument at all. You misused the term. Pure projection.

What cult? The cult of explaining your position? You've completely given up arguing the issue now. This doesn't make sense.

Misrepresenting what facts? It's a discussion forum, ask supershadow64ds what he means, to clarify his terms, be constructive. It's not a matter of black and white. Engage with the point of the post.

I want you to be the best you that you can be, you've obviously got the staying power for discussion and I think you can be better than an ad-hominem machine.

 

[the_randomizer]

Oy vey, just agree to disagree and move on. Dragging this on ad infnitum will solve nothing.