>Tips and tricks
>Artbook, soundtrack, manga, and other downloads
OST need re-up apparently
Last thread: >>92344006
>This OP imagine
you cheeky little cunt
>go to a bar
>order a drink without the bartender asking what i want first
>when i get the drink, don't put it on a coaster
>only give a minimal tip
>when i leave, don't keep the door open for anyone
FULL FUCKING CHAOS.
For those that don't know Atlus games are on sale on PSN (in America at least).
I've only played SMT IV and Devil Survivor Overclocked so far, but Digital Devil Saga 1 and 2 are downloading.
I'm intrigued by the FFX comparisons. It seemed more interesting than Nocturne. I read the starter guide and still have no damn idea what Raidou is (DMC with a demon partner?).
Anything I should know about DDS first? Any certain jobs to start best with?
This SMTG is much better than the last SMTG. I approve.
I think you're confused. This ain't FF5. You just advance your guys on a grid and since most of them start with some already gotten all you really need to do is go up the grid.
>For those that don't know Atlus games are on sale on PSN (in America at least).
Aren't there a bunch of PSN SMT games that don't run very well? If someone knows more about that they should probably post them before some poor anon buys a game and finds it's glitched or inadequate.
What's the next step of your master plan?
Strangely, I agree with you.
I mean technically I hate law the most but I'm pretty bitter toward chaos for having so many qualities I like but then ending up so sociopathic.
But anon, it's not sociopathic, it's just
RULES OF NATURE
What kind of music do you think the alignments listen to?
Personally I say lawfags all listen to Creed
Got quite a bit when I went to AX during the summer, but most exchanges were people with low level demons attached or none at all, save for someone with a level 80 Cu Chulainn.
Also picked up Amala Midnight Vol. 2 there.
It's okay, definitely feels rushed at some points, though.
Holy shit, just let this crap die down already.
You're fucking replying to posts from an hour ago that were part of a conversation that is already dead just so you can have the last word. How fucking petty do you have to be?
>fighting the white
>hit every negative dialogue option to get constantly debuffed
>still win thanks to tetrakarn
If they wanted me to feel apathy they succeeded, I do not care for their nihilistic bullshit.
My emotions! They're out of control!
I support you. Killing the people who aren't chosen is just a natural evolution of the human spirit.
When I go to sleep and dream of SMT IF, only to wake and return to this IFless hellhole, I don't reply to old shit unless it's fucking on topic. And you shouldn't be replying to old garbage either.
Guys, look. I'm strawmanning the neutral level of intellectual debate.
>literally posting screenshots of lawfags supporting genocide
That doesn't exist anon. How can it exist if nothing exists?
At least its on topic, unlike arguing about whether we're being invaded by tumblr, or whether even if not we have to edit the word tumblr out of filenames so autists don't have spergs.
>straight-up evil shit
Back to primary school, kid.
Or start reading philosophical/ethical shit. Or just read the posts you screencap, if that still doesn't work, try to use your brain while reading them.
The man's name is Bulk VanderHuge.
He is a six and a half foot tall, 300 pound musclebound beefman who wears rainbow dragon armor, smokes weed every day, and once had to suck a wizard's dick to get his friend turned back into a human after having been turned into a newt.
Technically SMT related because he's
>killing thousands upon thousands of people for no reason other than you don't like them
>not a universally wicked thing to do
Killing people is wrong. Almost every single ethics system shares this sentiment.
Seriously. stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't get the point, just don't shitpost. You are literally admitting that you don't get what the point is, but still trying to talk about it.
Only one of those was me.
>Seriously. stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't get the point, just don't shitpost. You are literally admitting that you don't get what the point is, but still trying to talk about it.
Then humor me. Tell me what the point is.
If he did that, he would get shit again for repeating the same shit over and over again.
I know you're new here but just go to the archives and read up the discussions of the last three threads.
>only one of those was me
Buddy, three lawfags did not just appear out of nowhere at 3:30 AM and start circlejerking each other using the exact same arguments as ever.
I don't follow. If he cared about repeating himself like that then he wouldn't say anything at all.
Seriously, at this point it sounds like he's being intentionally vague since he's muddled up his own point so much that it's no longer coherent.
That you are using a device which can see with high reliability far into the future (yhvh) to create a system which in the long run of a countless number of generations create a system which overall -minimizes- unneeded suffering and early deaths. And that if you did indeed know for sure how to do this, then the only reason not to is because you feel emotionally about seeing all the deaths happen up front and that you are directly involved. So your complaints about deaths are not actually about deaths in general, since you would be minimizing them as much as possible (confirmed by lucifer himself) but that you feel guilty being directly involved, since you mistakenly think that your apathy doesn't count as a choice / your emotions make it all about you rather than the results for the people involved / you have trouble processing that the morality of the action also takes into account things that will happen in future generations that don't even exist yet.
Pretty much every ethical system allows some amount of killing for the greater good. Acting like its about no reason other than not liking them means you miss the point. II and IV both explicitly point out that its not about who the people are in particular. So if your complaints don't address the actual points it means you don't understand them.
Seems like the only people who care about alignment fighting anymore are a couple of lawfags and a handful of people who want to make fun of them. The second group could potentially be of any alignment, as long as they can make the lawfags think they're neutral.
So what you're telling me is, that if we eliminate all Jews then the Aryan race will reach new heights and poverty and war will be gone forever.
The ends justify the means. The world would also be a lot more peaceful if there was a single digit number of people on it. Let's enact that plan.
>Pretty much every ethical system allows some amount of killing for the greater good
Haha, like which? Can you name an ethical system that outright allows group A to eliminate group B as long as it's justified to group A?
>It was almost zero until Beadman's retarded ass had to bring back a discussion that ended hours ago.
Yes, let us prohibit every alignment discussion in this general about the Megoomi series because of the shitposters.
So, let's talk about fujoshits. wud u fugg 1?
Is this meant to be a serious comparison that you actually think makes sense? The issue here is that killing all the jews had no positive utility whatsoever. Nazi Germany never even intended there to be peace; they had a total war economy. And they had no reason to think that there was actual benefit that came form that other than that they simply didn't care about anyone but white people. You can't at all compare it to a fantasy scenario which has rules which very much let you know the collective utility of some things. Which the games say directly themselves in overclocked amane's eigth day when atsuro and the angel talk about how in reality for anyon not the messiah that going around killing people would be wrong, but its different when you know the future, and know for sure that what you are doing increases utility. The point of law is not "constantly plot to kill people you don't like."
Are you implying all killing is equivalent. Do you believe there can be a such thing as a just war, or you always need to without question surrender if anyone attacks you, no matter how corrupt or evil they are? In just wars you are still killing -innocent people-. Enemy combatants are not all pure evil entities whose lives have no value. They are humans like you who have families and hopes and dreams and who may be caught up in something bigger than they can deviate from on their own. But if these people happen to themselves be nazi soldiers you have to fight them anyways.
Thanks guys, I'm just kinda sad that I dont really know how to type in text or put in speach bubbles, I... just know how to draw...
im an idiot
I'm down for some other requests as well
btw I've only played the fourth game and absolutely loved it. Are they all as good?
4 is probably the weakest mainline game if you're willing to put up with some of the more aged parts of the first two games.
So yeah, if you like the first game you'll really like the others, though be warned that 4 is insanely easy in comparison.
So that's beadman too? Surprising.
Okay let me rephrase it: let us prohibit every alignment discussion in this general about the Megoomi series if there is one shitpost pretending to be an epic lawfag ruser because of the shitposters.
I think we should kill off the thread right away if there is even one post resembling a shitposts, what do you think about that proposal?
If you can get past the fact that some of the games are old and really show their age, the first two are even better. SMT I has my favorite atmosphere in the entire series, and SMT II has the best story according to a lot of people (I still prefer I, honestly). Nocturne is pretty fun, though the reasons are kinda shitty, and SJ is a blast as well.
>Yeah, but there's a difference between "I'll fight for my family and country" and "I'll destroy a completely destitute people because then my ideal society can be enacted".
What is the difference in this particular scenario? You keep making false equivalencies to killing random people for no reason. Not killing people in order to preserve a greater peace and safety. Which is equivalent directly to what you are doing in a just war.
In real life there are no perfect answers. Innocent people can and will die. You do not get to wash your hands of the reality that you are accountable for this by pretending that allowing one system where it happens that already exists "doesn't count as your fault" when you have the ability to switch it to one where it happens less.
Alignment discussions are not the problem.
The problem is one specific autist whose entire life seems to revolve around factions from a video game series to the point that he labels people who argue with him in terms of said factions even if they aren't supporting any particular faction. This whole "filthy neutrals" mentality is cringeworthy as fuck.
The difference? It's because in one case your country is under attack from another and it's only natural to defend it. In the second you're going out of your way to kill a people who are largely preoccupied with merely surviving. There's a pretty hefty difference.
All SMT games are pretty good. I recommend Nocturne, which is a pretty stark difference to SMTIV in terms of atmosphere.
And more Isabeau sketches would always be nice, though no rush or anything.
This man knows what he's talking about.
>implying we don't need more Chiaki instead
No, it isn't. Beadman isn't the only guy arguing for law, every last one of those gets the same reaction regardless of what exactly it is they post as long as they argue for law. This whole "genocidal lawfags" mentality is cringeworthy as fuck.
And falseflagging does happen a lot on 4chan, surprised that you're still offended by it. Lawfags aren't the only ones in this general who do it.
There's so many problems with this line of logic that its hard to even point them out. You are blaming individual people, both civilians and soldiers who army have been drafted for the fact that their leaders are pushing them into fighting you. And deciding that that means they absolutely lose their right to life in a way that killing them is not a meaningful issue. If you want to talk about who is cold and sociopathic, this is a ruthless nationalistic line of thought. You are blaming an entire group or country for what a few people might have done. And which you also ignore that many of them may not realize they are on the wrong side of.
And this ignores in itself that this distinction is arbitrary. What makes certain people "more okay to kill?" by your argument? It ultimately boils down to that you think it would result in a better outcome. Or that you are simply not ascribing full humans rights to people you deem as your enemy. Which is worse than law logic, since law treats everyone as equivalent. Who ends up dead is simply who needs to for the better outcome. Even if its your own high ranking people, yourself, or yhvh himself.
You also seem to be handwaving that in most of these scenarios there is a war going on. In IV these events happen when they say that demons are overtaking tokyo and attacking you. So even by your special pleading justification of needing to be attacked, this is in fact also what is happening in game.
There's a lack of Beth, true.
It's a crime that Shoji doesn't get more attention.
>What makes certain people "more okay to kill?" by your argument?
Because in one case they're literally attacking your country with the intent of taking it over so fighting back is natural? Justified, one might say. In the other YOU'RE attacking them and then having the audacity to claim that your attack is justified and for the greater good.
I mean sure, at some level it boils down to killing people to have your way enacted/preserved but there's a huge difference in urgency. In one case you're killing to protect the current society, in the other you're killing to enact a potential society.
>In one case you're killing to protect the current society, in the other you're killing to enact a potential society.
What if the current society is a ruthless dictatorship and the one's trying to kill it great revolutionaries?
Would you say the current society is right?
>>Because in one case they're literally attacking your country with the intent of taking it over so fighting back is natural? Justified, one might say. In the other YOU'RE attacking them and then having the audacity to claim that your attack is justified and for the greater good.
So basically you are ultimately complaining that law is too egalitarian and treats everyone as equivalent, whereas to you classifying people who are attacking you as less than human is okay for some reason. These people are victims of circumstance. They didn't choose to be born into a society that would later attack you. So you claim law is dehumanizing, but ignore that you are more than them.
>I mean sure, at some level it boils down to killing people to have your way enacted/preserved but there's a huge difference in urgency. In one case you're killing to protect the current society, in the other you're killing to enact a potential society.
That distinction is arbitrary. The status quo doesn't deserve any special consideration simply for already existing. Both are about trying to achieve better ends overall. And the future is always "potential." A similar future you are more used to deserving more consideration than another better one has no real justification for why "its different" other than familiarity. Especially in a fantasy situation where you can be assured that this potential is better than what you have now.
I'd say they're still different in terms of urgency. It's not really so much about who's right but more who's actually going to take the first step to bloody their hands for the future.
>These people are victims of circumstance. They didn't choose to be born into a society that would later attack you
I'm not talking about retaliation against a country for acts of war, I'm talking about clear defensive reaction; like troops sneak across the border in the dead of night and start attacking people in your country. Removing the attackers from your country is a justified move. Anything further is subjective. Hell, people STILL argue about the ethicality of counterattacks in wars that are decades old.
>That distinction is arbitrary
No, I don't think it is. You're talking about two similar actions that have an entirely different impetus. It's like saying that the distinction between espionage and sabotage is arbitrary. They're similar kinds of actions but they have wildly differing implications & repercussions.
Wars involve innocent people dying. Fighting off people on your own territory means they will even be people from your own country. Likewise even if they are soldiers their lives still have value. Your argument is conflating what is justified in an ideal situation with what would make sense to actually expect to play out in war. Something bad which has no later benefit is just bad. You can't conflate military tactics with thought experiments where you are told what the result will be. And if your reasons boil down to results, law is about maximizing results. If they boil down to concepts of "who is okay to consider not worthy of protection" then you have a bigger issue on your hands to why you consider that more important than protecting people.
>implications & repercussions.
We're talking about the repercussions in a fantasy scenario where you know it creates world peace. So if we're conflating situations, this is actually much more justified than any unknown scenario in real world situations where you just have to wing it. And is why conflating it with things like nazis is radically incoherent. Which is why law is associated with peace in general. The point is to ultimately prevent war situations. And this too is to minimize negative dubious situations of them in the future. Which is what the everlasting peace aspect is about. Law isn't about warmongering. And the ideology is about pacifism when it can best be maintained.
A soldier knows what he or she is getting into though. You're not wresting soldiers from their homes and killing them. They know what their actions can result in. The people who you attack in their home country are not soldiers and do not deserve to be destroyed. It might sound cruel to say that soldiers should anticipate dying on the battlefield but it's an adage for a reason.
And if the ideal society can only be enacted by killing people who have very little involvement in the foundation of your new society, I would hesitate to call it just. You can talk about pacifism but at the end of the day you kill thousands of innocents in the Law path just because they're not the chosen people. Consider: if you have to physically destroy anyone who could potentially upset your new society, how firm of a society even is it? If the disenfranchised, destitute people of Tokyo (literally referred to as Filth by the leaders of Law) can truly cause such a stir, what are you actually fighting for? A kingdom of glass.
>A soldier knows what he or she is getting into though.
Until very recently this wasn't really true. And even now it only is for first world countries. And its very cold to use as an excuse the idea that killing soldiers doesn't really matter. If that's how it works then constant war doesn't count as negatives since its a loophole that lets you get rid of people without it "counting." Many of the people who are in this situation may have had pressures putting them in beyond deciding to be one totally neutrally and then deciding that thus their life has no value. Which is hardly just either.
And your second paragraph was already gone over. If you kill people to save many more it is easily just. The only way to spin it as not so is to make it about yourself having to act rather than the people who receive the consequences. Which is remarkably selfish, since you're handwaving the suffering they really receive. And again, most of the killing takes place in situations it would be very hard not to in. And there's in games reasons for this. The people in the new world have a new psychology that prevents strife. Intermingling with regular humans who do not could destroy the system. And yet once established the narrative points out that it lasts forever. Calling it glass isn't really an insult, since its not about being strong. Its about what works. And a world with only the innocent / humble inherit the earth it shows creating everlasting peace and happiness.
so when you get the chaos ending in 4 and inevitably fug hikaru, does that mean by proxy you are fugging walter?
thanks for the tips guys
Thanks, and yeah, thick girls do need love
Aight bored as rocks gimme a request or something.
I-I take commissions too you know ;w;
not sure if it goes along what you wanted but, done
is this the same girl who features as the schoolgirl in IV ?
Well, the whole thing about the Vortex World is that the people gather Magatsuhi to make a Reason and compete to see which one will prevail for the new world. The problem with Freedom/Demon/True Demon is that hey aren't reasons, I guess.
There are a lot of weird things happening in there, but I think it's all intentional
That's right. The whole idea of Nocturne is being in a chaotic world. But the events of this chaotic world set the whole stage for the new world that will be made.
Because they apparently didn't know how to switch things up but vaguely decided to try once anyways. So we got attack of the bad writing followed by subsequent games never trying again.
Its not necessarily terrible when taken as its own story, but as part of the megaten universe its pretty dubious. Pretty much every demon acts out of character. The angels not only show up as chaotic, but openly call kagutsuchi an arrogant god, obviously trying to tie them to standard chaos. Demons being the new law is cool, but the ones they chose didn't really make sense. The entire introduction of the "other" chaotic lawish system seemed like it should go somewhere, but its never mentioned again. This is equivalent to what chaos usually is in most games. Why were the angels acting like they were going against kagutsuchi. Or were they not? Was it a continuation of SMTII? Where the angels represent something akin to the center, but hikawa was the other law end? And hell, before TDE was put in, the "good" chaotic end was actually neutral. So for that game alone, lucifer didn't think wurld of str was a good idea? If any of this was meant to be part of the bigger mythology as a whole it shouldn't have came off like a really lazy person just haphazardly mixed up parts of the story and didn't care that it made no sense.
The entire thing simply didn't mesh well with the universe as a whole. And that's to say nothing about that kagutsuchi was an odd choice for an avatar of yhvh. Assuming that that's even what it was. And if it was, why is it suddenly okay with literally any ending, so long as you use it to get it. Are both it and the angels with yhvh? Neither? One?
>Why were the angels acting like they were going against kagutsuchi. Or were they not?
If they were against Kagutscuhi, they wouldn't have supported a reason, just like Lucifer.
>And if it was, why is it suddenly okay with literally any ending, so long as you use it to get it.
I guess because that's just how the process of death and rebirth of the world works. You're thinking in terms of endings, but that's not a thing in the games, they're all paths. The reasons all lead to a new world, which is the whole point of the Vortex World. Meanwhile Freedom just remakes the previously existing one; Demon leaves the Vortex as it is, with no real new world; and True Demon completely destroys the cycle (at least for that world). Kagutsuchi is an entity that is in place to ensure the continuation of the cycle of death and rebirth of the world, so those endings are all against his purpose.
I think the whole problem arises because it's all a bit too vague, the game isn't specific enough about how the process works and that just leads to confusion and a lot of space for speculation that is hard to prove or disprove.
The problem is that that relagates the actual different ideologies to basically a tiny choice between how you side with kagutsuchi. And yet that is something that no other game implies. Since lucifer seems totally fine with leaving the world there yet pushing it forward to a demon ruled one in every other game. So why is he now on a totally different side. Does he think in-world chaotic is a good second best? Or does he not care about it at all unless its a more demonic version. If they were going to exand the cosmology to include more concepts, they should have had another representative of some kind. The way it is it just looks like none of the characters are very consistent.
Well... none of the other games have the context of the vortex world. It's possible that Lucifer has no way to force the Conception, so he has to settle with opposing Law in the more common ways we see. But within the Vortex World the idea is different. It's to influence a stop in the cycle of recreation. How frequently he tries and achieves this is unclear. It's also unclear how often there's one strong person that can trample all Reason representatives and defeat Kagutsuchi without developing a reason, but that was the case in Nocturne.
For the True Demon Ending, Lucifer sees a new opportunity. He figures Demi-fiend is strong enough to be his general and lead a larger initiative against the Great Will, a chance to not only stop the imposed cycle for a single world, but to destroy the system altogether.
Nocturne is definitely weird as far as this sort of stuff goes. But I don't think Atlus particularly cares about trying to maintain some form of lore consistency or anything; They generally just seem to be playing around with different concepts each time around. We'll just have to live with the fact that we'll never get an entirely unified and entirely consistent sense of anything, not even the big recurring entities.
So quick question about P4A.
It's currently on sale with all its DLC for $20, but is the game just completely outdated/irrelevant with the release of Ultimax? I don't mean as in online community, just in terms of is there any point in getting it when Ultimax exists?
>PCEngine version of SMT had unique demons like this guy
Holy shit this guy looks fucking awesome. He's so full of religious fervor that death doesn't stop him from kicking ass and taking names. Lawfags, take a page out of this guy's book/
Sorry, I fell asleep but yeah, I guess I do haha
Wokeup to this, thank you honorable drawing samurai!
Looks like she's working at hooters or something