Lurker > Gaawa_chan

Lokarin posted...

ya, if Link had diagonal movement then the enemies likely would have to, too; which would make the game almost impossibly difficult.

Going off on a tangent... Blue Wizzrobes could move diagonally, as could Peahats, and they were invincible when they did so usually. Some bosses also moved diagonally, like Digdogger.

My main issue with LoZ is that I find its level design to be extremely dull, and I thought so even at the time. The game starts to get boring to me right around the time it starts to actually pose a bit of a challenge, which is a shame. The final dungeon is just a massive bore-fest. Oh, well.

I think the Satellaview 3rd quest made some very nice improvements to LoZ (but it's also too easy, if I recall correctly, and could use some rebalancing).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You don't know much about grooming, do you?

Some of the Xanadu and... Sorcerian? games were on PC. Same company that now makes the Legend of Heroes series. Uh, there's also Ys, I guess.

Rulebreaking, generally, is not a huge deal as long as someone is not being an asshole or putting someone in danger. In this instance, dude is an asshole, and he should be grateful that he hasn't already faced more serious consequences for being a sack of shit.

Gr8M8 posted...

Is it the turtleneck?

Nah, that's probably the only thing I like about it, lol. I am picky about clothes, tbh.

So many of the NES games, unfortunately. I think that LoZ has aged far more poorly than Zelda 2.

A lot of games with terrible load times in general are pretty hard to go back to as well, no matter how much I liked them, tbh.

Yes, I've done it before in order to test it out before recommending others go there with me.

Yes! Shame about the changed VAs, but their replacements seem fine.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I think it's hilarious.

I don't like either of them. Never been a fan of those types of tops. *shrug*

Impressed? No. I don't think anyone is deluded into believing that corporations do these things for moral reasons, particularly when said corporations are often caught giving cash to individuals/organizations that oppose the positions and people they claim to be supportive of in their ads/PR crap. That doesn't mean I oppose such things in and of themselves, especially since they do seem to have a positive impact, or at least they reflect an existing positive change in the general population, but I think pretty much everyone knows that corporations care about nothing other than profit.

But it makes me sneeze. :(

That's a masculine urge? I think I've seen women do it more often.

My house used to be next to a field, which got developed several years ago. All the field mice fled into people's houses. Our cats caught a few, but they gave them to us alive, so we put them further out of town.

You just have to play with your cat(s) more. It's easier if you have more than one cat and they get along because then they can play with each other.

Yes. One thing that defines toxic masculinity is people performatively doing things they don't want to do in order to be percieved as masculine. An example of toxic femininity, then, would be women having kids when even though they hate children. This often results in the children being treated poorly out of resentment. However, this example is also rooted in misogyny and obstructions to contraception, abortion, and adoption.
I once knew a woman who just fucking despised her children... she had thirteen of them.

Most of the standouts I would have chosen are already listed, so I'll go with something a bit more obscure and niche.

segawa's End Roll. I liked the story a lot.
https://vgperson.com/games/endroll.htm

I'm sure the liberal white women are all heartbroken.

A friend of mine has a little graveyard for all the animals her cat has killed and I'm just like... keep your cat inside?

Yes! \o/

I don't think I'd like that, tbh.

slacker03150 posted...

I'll do you one better

The comments on that video... </3

Telekinesis: Has some overlap in usefulness with invisibility, and is less dangerous by far. Also better than super strength and flight depending on the limitations, and it even has some of the benefits that being able to teleport with others would grant in that you could probably save lives with this.
>=>
Clairvoyance: Depending on its efficacy, this could have a similar impact to time travel without the potential extremely dangerous side effects. It is a hard pick between this one and telekinesis but I think that clairvoyance might drive me nuts if I learned of terrible shit but couldn't avert it.
>
Teleportation: Interesting, but depending on how it works it could backfire, and it won't exactly protect you from the trouble you could get into with it, lol. If you want to travel the world, there's probably no better choice. If you could teleport others as well, that would make it a better option; you could save a lot of lives that way. The speed at which you could teleport would also be an important factor.
>
Invisibility: This could be useful for a variety of reasons, but it could also get you killed if you aren't careful. It would depend on whether or not it was *just you* or if it also applied to... like... clothes and tools and such.
=>=
Super Speed: Depends on how fast, but this could come with some unpleasant side effects and could be dangerous in a way similar to invisibility (namely, you could get splatted like a bug)... but... teleportation... this one is very parameter dependent, imo.
>
X-Ray Vision: Useful if you want to go into health/vet care, but clairvoyance might be able to substitute for the effects this would have.
>
Time Manipulation +/- One Day: Extremely risky depending on the parameters, and if it doesn't revert your aging, or has other unforeseen impacts... it's cool but it's just not worth it, especially because you could replicate quite a few of its benefits via clairvoyance depending on how powerful your clairvoyance is.
>
Super Strength: Could be useful but depends on how strong. Also, if telekinesis can reach the same levels of power, there's no point.
>
Underwater Super Speed and Breathing: Nah... unless you want to be a lifeguard or something but even then, telekinesis could substitute.
>
Flying: Nah. Why when you could teleport?

^ It's that. Related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgR3lBtwrLo

Yellow posted...

Sadly those are vastly outweighed by the negative treatment trans people get. If our biggest problem is that they are too well protected... that's a very optimistic problem to have. Instead, I'm worried about moving somewhere else in case the government passes a bill legislating that trans acceptance is the equivalentt of child abuse. These next 30 years are going to slide downhill in that regard, fast.

My best friend irl is trans and well she doesn't really explain why. I'm not trans so I don't know why. It just hurts being rejected and dogpiled by people without a good reason who just don't have a good grasp on the situation.

I think this is a good response. My general attitude towards pronouns is pretty simple. Pronouns are, for all intents and purposes, generic nicknames that exist for the convenience of whoever is speaking, so that you don't have to constantly say someone's name. If you're deliberately, repeatedly using a nickname for someone who has expressly told you not to do that and that they don't like it, you're not some sort of arbiter of truth; you're an asshole harassing someone.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is correct, especially because this is impacting SICK people the most, and there is a strong undercurrent of eugenics in the USA- that they are unworthy burdens on society and should be sacrificed for the natural order/hierarchy (people went literally mask off on this when COVID-19 hit). I think a lot of people who don't interact with people with chronic illnesses/disabilities don't realize how normalized throwing such people under the bus is. People with disabilities don't even have marriage equality in the USA.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism?

A bit reductive, but more or less, yeah.

With no context, there's no reason for me to not just look at this person and be like "holy shit, that dude's being tortured. I gotta help."

... Furthermore and all other factors aside, I don't think that someone who had endured that level of torment would be in a fit state to do much harm once freed, so... sure, I'd free them. People are too quick to assume that punishment meted out is punishment deserved, or that once someone has been punished, they are somehow now a danger to be set free. If that's the case, then why punish at all? It's counterproductive.

The_tall_midget posted...

In every game I've played, letting a being constrained by very powerful magics, usually ends very, very badly.

Yeah, it's a good plot point by which to create narrative-driven combat.

Phantom_Nook posted...

"trans people are icky,s o they shouldn't have rights."
that about sums it up.

^ This. It's an instinctive sense of either disgust, fear, or hatred, that they attempt to rationalize after the fact. They're working backwards from an instinctive, emotional conclusion.

Oh no I'm going off on a tangent somebody stop m-

To people fixated on control and hierarchy as being part of some sort of "natural order" (lol) or root of morality (lmao), LGBT+ people are easily the most subversive threat to their sensibilities on the surface. We're talking about people who think that your phenotypes at birth don't just functionally define you (in their eyes), but that they determine how you should be permitted to behave and how you deserve to be treated. You were born *THIS* way, therefore you are supposed to exist in *THIS* space and role in society, and if you do not, then you are clearly trying to degenerate society. This is also why they tend to be fixated on penalization rather than harm reduction. You can point out every day until the day you die that the best way to reduce abortions is to pair comprehensive sex education with birth control access, but it doesn't matter because they aren't interested in harm reduction; they want to control behavior and penalize deviance from said approved behavior. "It is the natural order that women get penalized for sex with pregnancy+birth+child-rearing. Abortion is in defiance of that natural order."

It's why even some secular countries are viciously anti-LGBT+, because this attitude is not necessarily reliant upon a religion but it IS very useful to authoritarian governments. One of my favorite videos touching on this is James Somerton's video on Chinese censorship of LGBT+ people. Parts 3 onward in that video are excellent for explaining why it is that oppressive States almost always bee-line for LGBT+ people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIsQ502N0fg&t=1467s

To go with something a teensy bit more niche than others are recommending:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi
If you've never seen it, this movie is basically just a bigass music video set to high quality footage of stuff like... traffic and buildings being destroyed and landscapes and such. It's very mesmerizing, and uh... quite grim, but in a semi-abstract way. I think the film's only gotten better over the years. I remember watching it as a kid and having a sort of baby's first existential crisis, lol.
I'll link to the OST but if you haven't seen it you should really just watch the actual film because the music and visuals are supposed to hit a specific sort of mood together, and you're missing out if you don't watch the visuals with the audio first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3q7bT0v9IE
Oh, maybe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4MXPIpj5sA

*sigh*
https://twitter.com/Vinminen/status/1540437651198824448
https://twitter.com/_trashville/status/1543370002480467969
https://twitter.com/babs_zone/status/1543433814940143616
I am not surprised that this is leading to a denial of life-saving medications to women and intersex and trans people. USA has always been big on using the State to at a minimum neglect sick people to death.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power?

Todd Akin?
Though there have been quite a few politicians who have made statements like that:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/5/AAdkcxAADZAh.jpg
https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif

adjl is perhaps the most patient person I've ever seen on the internet, lol.

Probably Pac-man or Mario... maybe a Tetris block, but I don't know if that counts, lol.

I voted for the wrong option because I didn't pay much attention. Derp.

Anyway, I'd have given him even more years if it had been my decision.

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNjSjBzcs9I

But you can just wipe it off, I don't understand...

For no reason? Uh, no, I would not.

Adam_Savage posted...

you know why that banana went extinct
because it tastes like shit and fucking sucks
banana flavored things do not taste like a banana

No. The Cavendish is just more resistant to Panama disease.

I have seen candy makers make Cavendish flavored candy, though. It's just not mainstream.

I don't understand why these vehicles do not have some emergency way to get out in the event that someone gets stuck inside them. I've always found that incredibly bizarre.

lol oh wow. I'm not especially surprised but still:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/1/0/AAWoFkAADYxm.png

Economic Left: -9.13
Social Libertarian: -9.18

I have been told before that it's actually really rare for someone to end up outside of the lower left box, and that the questions heavily skew in that direction and bias the results, but this is probably accurate for me, ngl. I am the furthest left person I know irl.

Sarcasthma posted...

On hand? Socks go on your feet (and dong), you dink.

You've never made sock puppets before?

Because if you have no tissues and you gotta use something that's on hand and you'd rather it would be one of the least used, easy to hold, and optional clothing items you have and can easily wash? I don't think I've ever used them this way but it makes enough sense to me- I have severe allergies so I always have some sort of tissue on hand, usually just full-on toilet paper rolls, lol, but if I had none, I'd rather that shit be on a random sock than on anything else.

I think part of the reason the sequels are so disappointing to people is because you can see the potential in the bones of them that went completely unused. Real shame.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

How many fucking times do we need to watch some no name background character "dramatically" sacrifice themselves in a Disney Star Wars property. It never used to happen and now it's every fucking show/film. They got high off Rogue One or something.

I'd say that this is an inherent problem with most prequels in general, but it also was a problem in the sequel movies from what I've heard (only watched the first one), so...???? (and oddly, it wasn't that much of an issue in SW 1-3, which I thought made most of its character deaths pretty meaningful even if they were poorly executed, ugh Padme).

Unironically excited for Johnson's new trilogy. Say what you will about TLJ, he obviously has ideas. If he's in charge of an entire cohesive trilogy I'm optimistic assuming they don't crush his balls in a focus group.

They shouldn't have made the sequels if they didn't have a clear vision for the narrative. Like... say what you will about SW 1-3 but they had a cohesive story that made sense and actually went somewhere from start to finish. I never thought that was something that needed to be lauded in a story before... oof...

Jen0125 posted...

I actually found a doctor here that I was able to go to who doesn't discourage sterilization but she convinced me against it anyways when she said if I get my tubes tied and IUD removed I'll get my period back

@Jen0125 You could get an endometrial ablation or a hysterectomy if you can find a doctor that supports you getting those.

OmegaM posted...

Actually, I think he meant that it took roughly 50 years for Brown vs. Board to overrule Plessy vs. Ferguson, so the mere fact that Roe vs. Wade has been around for 50 years doesn't say one way or the other whether we should keep it around.

I hope you are right.

Wanna see a Texas senator call for the reversal of racial segregation Supreme Court rulings?
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306

Ehm... not really, no. I'll sometimes remember something as being better than it actually is and end up being disappointed, but if there's something I outright dislike, I try to avoid it. I am autistic so that may impact the strength of my aversions, though.

Yellow posted...

Yes

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

An objective and commonly accepted historic fact is not a conspiracy by definition. You can call other people liars but I'm not going to let you project on me, because you're a liar. You are the anti-science one. The union did not suddenly adopt segregationalist thinking and fight against the anti-racist south. The Republicans currently are the same group that enslaved people and tried to secede. Obviously. Texas Republicans are recently fighting to secede for the same reason, "state rights".

It's also worth noting the role unions in general played in this. I hope I don't need to explain to anyone why union folk tended on the whole to be more socially progressive, and how that altered the Democratic party, slowly but dramatically, over the years.

*shrug* All you gotta do to see the flip is look at the maps in relation to the party affiliation. The pro-slavery Dems and anti-slavery Republicans didn't all magically trade their houses with each other. Party positions often shift throughout American history, it's not exactly a secret; we can track these shifts from year to year. The Republican party used to be more pro-choice than the Democratic party, too. *shrug*

I would have thought all ye olde Dixie Democrats screaming about the states' rights to slavery would have made it pretty clear that there was a shift regarding whether or not states should have the power to shit on civil rights within said party, but I guess not.