Pink Petal Games
Game Discussion => General Discussion & Download => Topic started by: goofydude on January 13, 2010, 02:02:45 AM
-
Now, I haven't read the descriptions of these traits recently, but I remember last time I did, it seemed to be the same thing.
So, what is the difference between the two?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yandere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yandere)
-
Well, I learned something today. I had always thought Yandere referred to someone who was psychotically violent (I beat the shit out of you for no good reason), while Tsundere referred to someone who has problems dealing with others - typically of the opposite sex - which manifests in violence (I beat the shit out of you because I don't know how to associate with you).
-
Well, I learn something as well, that wikipedia has pages on those two things.
-
lol
Well I figured I had two options, look it up on wikipedia or start a conversation here.
Then I'm made to look it up on wikipedia anyways.. lol.
-
Well, I learn something as well, that wikipedia has pages on those two things.
There's so much useless shit on Wikipedia these days it's not even funny. They really should have kept entertainment and Internet culture content separate to help with the site's credibility as an educational resource, but it's too late now. You have pages on specific Internet memes now FFS.
Non-wiki answer:
Tsundere means bitch, Yandere means psychotic bitch. At least that's what people used to call someone who's cold/indifferent/violent most of the time, then acts nice and loving when they want something from you. Apparently anime uses these character personalities so often, they decided to give them an official definition the make it seem almost cute. I don't really get the appeal, seeing as how any sane person would run like hell from such a personality in real life.
-
It isn't the extraneous articles that keep it from being a credible resource, it's the anyone-can-edit-it nature of the beast. Whenever I had a professor that didn't allow citing from wiki, it wasn't because it lost credibility. It was always because they'd heard about some article about some famous jackass got vandalized with un-true information for a period of time before anyone noticed. I for one like wiki's articles for everything (within reason). I have found it to more consistently give the information I wanted than any traditional encyclopedia.
-
It's a great starting point for research, and an all round useful resource.
Just don't take anything there as being authoratative, and treat with great caution anything that touches on politics, business or celebrities.
Bear that in mind, and Wikipedia is a modern marvel :)
-
I use Wikipedia when I don't care all that much about how accurate the information might be. On the whole, the information in Wikipedia tends to be more extensive and in depth than, say, encyclopedias, but it falls prey to the problem that any one entry you look up could have been a) written by well intentioned person who doesn't quite have the facts straight (which hasn't been caught by the community yet) or b) deliberately sabotaged. Unfortunately, there is no way to disprove either of these possibilities without further research.
-
If you want entertainment there's always uncyclopedia.com