Lurker > adjl

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/9/AAB4-6AAD_Rp.jpg

I'm noticing a theme here...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They never offer an argument that would persuade someone who doesn't already think with that mindset.

And which mindset is that, exactly? That people should be accepting of those that are different in completely harmless ways? Because it is indeed rather difficult to convince people that place no value in not being a piece of shit to stop being a piece of shit, though that's more a function of said shit than it is of those left in the unfortunate position of needing to convince them.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Right-wing content will provide something thought provoking.

Such as...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Ooh... you're talking about algorithms while I'm talking about administrative actions taken by people. People have bias. Algorithms just work with the information they're given.

I'm talking about results. Algorithms could very easily be tailored to favour left-wing content if that were actually the company's goal.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You don't need to have direct access to the laptop to be told what is on it or what the emails say. But that doesn't matter. Was it a conservative bias to suppress discussion about it?

It's still discussion of hacked materials. Did anyone say that suppressing that discussion was conservative bias?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Absolutely false. The Jan 6th protest happened because the Democrat party called into question the election process for the 4 years prior as well as the support shown for similar protests in 2020.

That's... not remotely true. That you believe it is suggests such a profound disconnect from empirical reality that I really don't know where to start trying to fix you.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I've never noticed that.

Perhaps you should pay more attention, then.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Primarily because the bannings never had anything to do with what views people wanted to express. Simply not agreeing with the regressive talking points was enough to get someone labeled as right-wing. And simply being labeled as right-wing was enough to get someone banned, or just visibility filtered, regardless of anything they actually posted.

This is also just plain not true. By all means, though, feel free to provide examples of specific tweets that were taken down simply for "not agreeing with the regressive talking points." Bonus points if you find one that can't be completely invalidated withing 30 seconds of looking for context.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Whoever believes this must be so far left that other leftists look right-wing to them.

You can review the findings yourself if you want to interpret them. That's corroborated by countless other studies on the matter, though: Social media algorithms tend to have a measurable right-wing promotion bias. That's generally not a deliberate decision on the part of the companies running them, it's just a consequence of how they play out (namely, far-right content tends to be more objectionable and controversial and therefore generates more traffic). Again, individual examples of deleting right-wing content (which, again, is generally taken down not because it's right-wing, but because it's really horrible content) do not invalidate that overall trend.

Ogurisama posted...

Does it really matter?

As much as speaking accurately ever does. You would have been just as accurate to say "seems like I might have anthrax."

I'm glad you're feeling better, though.

Xenoblade 3 and it's not even close. Not only is it my GotY, it's one of my favourite games ever, even ranking above Xenoblade 1 in the very solid lead it's held for the last decade.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So suppressing discussion of the Hunter laptop story under the premise of "hacked materials" was a conservative move? The files demonstrate they knew no hacking was involved and that the real reason was because they acted on behalf of the FBI.

Did the files on Hunter's laptop belong to those that disseminated them? If not, then they qualify as hacked materials. "Hacked materials" doesn't have to fit any sort of narrow definition of what "hacking" is, it just means files to which you gained unauthorized access.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How about the banning of Donald Trump on the basis of inciting violence. When Elon Musk restores the account there are all these posts saying to be peaceful, abide by the rule of law, and don't act like the progressives. Where are the posts calling for violence? If anything old twitter hid the evidence disproving that he was involved with any violence.

The Jan 6th riot - an objectively violent incident - happened for one reason and one reason only: The story Trump chose to peddle about the election being stolen. Had he not created and perpetuated that lie, the riot would not have happened. Because he used Twitter to promote that lie, he was using Twitter to incite violence, and Twitter chose to distance themselves from him to avoid being associated with that. It's very simple.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Those are just the ones that people are talking about most. There are many others examples where old twitter just didn't like an account and suspended them despite finding no violation. When Elon Musk brings the accounts back people were asking why they were all right-wing. Why isn't he restoring any leftist accounts? The answer is leftist accounts were rarely touched unless they did something really egregious.

That, or it's only right-wing pundits doing the really egregious things. You ever notice how everyone that says "You can't express any right-wing views on twitter!" tries to avoid the question when asked which right-wing views they feel they can't express on twitter? That would be because they're not being banned for suggesting that they'd like to see a fiscally conservative budget or loosening regulations that are hurting small businesses. They're being banned for saying they want vigilantes to shoot trans people that try to go into the "wrong" bathroom.

Moreover, what Yellow was talking about was not isolated incidents that you feel are evidence of a grand conspiracy to silence the right. He's talking about the platform's overall content and the sort of things it tries to promote to all users. Overall, Twitter (and most social media) leans quite unambiguously to the right in that regard, as every actual investigation into the matter (including twitter's own) has found. That does not mean the platform never ever does anything that doesn't favour conservatives, so citing individual examples to nothing to disprove the trend.

Cacciato posted...

Wow, its almost like emergencies have a sliding scale from this definitely needs to be seen, but maybe I can go somewhere else to Im gonna fuckin die if I dont get treated.

Pretty much. It also gives you the option to let other people (such as whatever work you're missing) know roughly how long you'll be, or plan for meals if the need arises. Not every ER visit is something that has to happen as soon as possible, just something that has to happen sooner than or with more equipment available than a regular doctor appointment could.

The republican party doesn't actually believe any of their lies. They just stick to them because they know their voter base does.

I vaguely remember the name, but nothing in particular about him. That's unfortunate, though.

faramir77 posted...

Honestly yeah. 8-bit NES graphics were considered retro in the early 2000s. That's like considering PS3 graphics retro today.

Well, we are now at the point where the Wii is as old as the SNES was when the Wii came out, which is kind of wild given how relatively little it feels like gaming has changed since then.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Is it though? Because honestly, they are kinda ugly. 32 bit is a hard pass, but you need basically Majora's Mask HD remake levels to make 64 bit passable these days.

Yeah, there's a case for pixel art games because the aesthetic looks good on its own merit, but when you get into 3D games, the aesthetic of "retro" games was just making 3D graphics look as good as they could at the time, and there have been substantial strides made since then. Past the nostalgia factor, it doesn't have a lot of its own aesthetic merit.

Influenza doesn't typically have gastrointestinal symptoms. It's a respiratory illness. What people call "stomach flu" isn't the flu at all, and instead refers pretty broadly to any number of GI infections.

Hard_Light posted...

in canada, so it's 1.42 a liter, not gallon

And $1.42 Canadian, so $1.04 US. That works out to about $4/gal.

My last pre-order was Xenoblade X, since after the supply issues that plagued the first Xenoblade game (though I got a copy on launch without issue), I didn't want to take any chances. Unsurprisingly, it turned out to be unnecessary.

My last full-price purchase was also my last purchase, and that was Xenoblade 3, which I bought at launch.

Dikitain posted...

Yes and no.

I think there should be a limit on the amount you are allowed to gamble with in an establishment before they cut you off, similar to how there is a limit on the amount of alcohol a bar will serve you before they kick you out. Maybe scale that limit depending on age, or require adult supervision for anyone under 16.

Which is honestly not that different with how Fortnite works today:

https://tinyurl.com/4ervbxjk

There is a very vital difference there, though, in that what you're proposing would be a legal regulation to which gambling establishments would have to adhere to be allowed to operate (and is actually a much stricter regulation than what already exists). What Fortnite and other such games offer are voluntary restrictions that have to be enabled from the user end. Even putting aside the question of whether or not parents know about parental controls (since the game's addictive, predatory nature is very much not advertised, such that many parents won't even know to look for them), they do nothing to protect those without a third party to enable them or who figure out how to get around them. They're the rough equivalent of a casino saying "it's not our fault you didn't bring a friend to stop you before you spent your life savings on that slot machine," which is arguably true, but further regulations are imposed on casinos because that's woefully inadequate to prevent the harm that gambling can cause to those that are vulnerable to it.

Dikitain posted...

While I am not going to say the company isn't somewhat at fault, it is still overwhelmingly the individual's responsibility. Yea, the company wants you to spend money on something that probably isn't healthy but at some point you have to take scale into account otherwise the concept of personal responsibility is worthless.

So are you against gambling regulation?

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I've already explained to you.

I've addressed everything you've said.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'm not defending the company I'm bashing idiot lawsuits.

You applauded the judge that said they did nothing wrong. That's defending the company. Can you still taste the boot, or have you deep throated it so far that now you're just slathering your tongue all over that delicious corporate shin?

Dikitain posted...

Not really, you would be hard pressed to say that Epic is reponsable for the deaths of billions of people due to false advertising. Have they made just as much money? Sure. But at least they aren't murdering people. The problem with big tobacco wasn't that they were making money, it was the known killing of people to do so.

Direct deaths? Generally not. Financial ruin, potentially to the point of driving people to suicide? Absolutely.

The analogy doesn't require the scale of the harm to be the same, only the fundamental process behind it. Much like Big Tobacco actively denied and downplayed claims of addiction and harm for the sake of making profit, the AAA video game industry actively denies and downplays claims that they have designed their games to be addictive and predatory, banking on the ignorance of a judicial system populated entirely by people whose knowledge of video games peaked at noticing that Pac-Man existed to keep exploiting as many people as they can for as long as possible. To that end, the analogy is apt.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

The power button exists. There are apps that limit game time and don't allow kids to purchase games a parent might deem inappropriate. One can even delete the games or take away the console until they get their shit together. And yet lazy greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money are ever soooo helpless to say no.

There are solutions to the problems that Epic has created, but that doesn't mean Epic didn't create the problems in the first place. Absolving them of all blame for that, as this judge has, just enables them to keep exploiting vulnerable people and causing harm. Again, in this particular case, the non-lawsuit solutions are pretty easily available and I don't think there's much grounds to say they should be winning the suit, but for the judge to accept Epic's claim that they haven't designed anything to be addictive at face value is a testament to just how hopelessly out of touch the legal system is with modern technology and business practices.

Why is it that you hold such disdain for lazy, greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money, but not for lazy, greedy CEO's who want quick money by tricking vulnerable people into gambling addictions?

Do you not think that these comapnies are deliberately making their games addictive or otherwise psychologically manipulative? Because that would be rather hopelessly naive of you.

It's a pretty damning testament to the current market that I feel like the current 1.42 is cheap when I'd have balked at anything over 1.30 a year ago, but that's still a whole lot better than the $2+ it was for a while.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Good on the judge. Those people chose to have kids, they can damn well choose to set boundaries and limits for them. It's not the judge's job, nor is it the company's.

While there are certainly things the parents could have done to see better outcomes and I don't think there's actually much of a case against Epic here, the fact of the matter is that these games are 100% designed to be addictive and to manipulate players - especially those that have problems with impulse control or are otherwise vulnerable to addictions - into spending money. Framing this entirely as a failure of parenting places far too little blame on Epic (and the rest of the game industry) for their own get-rich-quick schemes that literally involve tricking children into gambling, which is something they absolutely should be held accountable for. The analogy to Big Tobacco is actually pretty apt.

chelsea___wtf posted...

It's a 6 which is a sonic 9.

Nice.

Muscles posted...

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

Perhaps it's for the best that you didn't end up becoming a parent >.>

papercup posted...

This. Rightwingers are crazy and evil, so their posts will generate more outrage, which drives more traffic, which generates more ad revenue. Social media doesn't care that they're accelerating the downfall of society, so long as they get their cut.

Which also means the "social media is silencing right-wing viewpoints!" thing is objectively nonsense. Pretty much every platform has some degree of right-leaning bias in the outcome of its algorithms, which is entirely the opposite of what the free speech pearl clutchers believe and claim.

LinkPizza posted...

But like I said, it doesn't matter as much to me since in the end, it still feels like assumptions.

It "feels like assumptions" to find a consistent, strong correlation between spanking and negative mental health outcomes across numerous studies covering tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of people and conclude that there is probably a causal link from those results, but it doesn't "feel like assumptions" to not notice a correlation in self-reported anecdotes you've casually collected from a few friends and conclude that there is no causal link from those results?

Most of science consists of that sort of "assumption": Scientists form hypotheses, conduct experiments to test them, and with each successive experiment that fails to reject a hypothesis that hypothesis becomes more and more credible, ultimately being accepted among the broader scientific community as probably being correct. It's fairly rare - especially in Psychology - that a study will look at something and be able to definitively identify a causal link. Instead, it's a matter of identifying correlations where a causal relationship is likely, and that's exactly what's happened with spanking and various adverse mental health and behavioural outcomes.

Is it possible that the observed correlation is actually due to other factors that, through sheer random chance, have affected the spanked subjects at a considerably greater rate than the control group? Sure. It's also possible that every coin flip you perform for the rest of your life will come up tails. Neither are particularly likely, though, so basing your opinion on the matter on the belief that that remote possibility is true simply because it better lines up with your uselessly narrow experience is, to be frank, pretty stupid.

Based on my impression of you, I don't think there was any one thing that messed up your life. You are not a mentally healthy person in many ways, and I think your mental health is deteriorating and your quality of life is going with it, but that's not a matter of there being a single turning point where everything went wrong. More importantly, that's not irreversible, so characterizing it as "my life has gone wrong and I can never fix it" doesn't make much sense and is going to actively impede your ability to improve your life until you stop thinking that way.

OhhhJa posted...

Spanking is one of those things that's been done for so many generations, that it's really hard for a lot of people to understand that it's actually wrong. A lot of people even wear it like a badge of honor because it's so ingrained in society. Can't count how many times I've heard some dude proudly boast about how his parents beat the shit out of him

See also: Circumcision.

LinkPizza posted...

To me, it is (at least in this case)...

That means you are grossly overestimating your own competence.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially when I don't even know how they came to believe which factors are causing what they see in their data...

If you actually read into and understand studies, competently-written ones for subjects like this usually outline different variables that they considered and break down their observations into various categories, such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, and region.

The biggest and easiest one to look for, though, is sample size: If you sample 10 people, 5 of whom were spanked and 5 of whom were not, finding that 3 of the spanked people developed problems and only 1 of the control group did not isn't an overly meaningful correlation, since on that scale random variation in other factors can indeed create correlations without there being any sort of causal relationship. If you sample 1,000,000 people, though, and 300,000/500,000 of the spanked group displayed problems and 100,000/500,000 of the control group did not, that's a very solid basis for saying that being spanked triples one's risk of developing those negative effects unless you can find another factor that's similarly correlated.

Meanwhile, self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked or have spanked their own children is largely useless. Those making the assessments are doing so from a layperson's perspective (meaning they can't necessarily recognize the potential negative effects), and the assessments carry an extreme risk of bias given that most people don't want to think that they or their parents might be child abusers.

The information you are observing is objectively without merit. Basing opinions on it is a terrible idea by every possible metric. So stop it.

LinkPizza posted...

I started asking more people who I saw on a daily basis about being spanked or not to see if it was the same as the research said... And I didn't see anything like what the research said... Which really just strengthened me not really believing in the research...

And you think self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked (or worse, were doing the spanking themselves) is more meaningful than collecting actual diagnoses on the scale of entire populations?

100% fire, but the only one I've actually played is Diamond, so that's not a tremendously meaningful majority.

LinkPizza posted...

Sure...

And what answer did that consideration yield?

LinkPizza posted...

Ive read the research before.

And did you consider why your perception conflicts with the results of the research?

I think I picked up the first one for free from Epic a while back, but I still haven't gotten around to playing it (like 99% of my Epic library >.>). It seemed moderately interesting.

Jen0125 posted...

Do you guys hit your romantic partners or social associates too? When they do things you don't like? Or is it only okay to hit children?

Hey, I have an idea: To save our hands from painful slapping, we should just put shock collars on kids and give them a little zap whenever they step out of line. After all, it's not like it'll injure them, right? That means it's not abusive.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I was just trying to remember if "We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" was a Simpson's quote.

I believe it also shows up in Futurama.

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, I understand what science says. Its just hard for me to believe it still when everything Ibe seen in my life suggest otherwise Thats all

So do some actual research. If the facts as presented by people that have actually studied them conflict with what you've seen in day-to-day life, don't just wring your hands and say "oh, it's hard for me to believe that" and dismiss the facts without thinking about it any further. Try to understand why you're seeing that inconsistency. Most of the time, I can tell you that the reason is going to be that you're wrong.

This is especially true where "everything you've seen in your life" is a handful of anecdotal evidence where you've done nothing to control for confounding variables or biases or even actually assess whether or not negative outcomes have arisen. You have zero credible basis for your opinion. To value your opinion higher than that of those that have a credible basis for theirs is just plain dumb.

Muscles posted...

the goal isn't to hurt them

There is no goal aside from hurting them. The fundamental concept is using pain as a punishment to influence their behaviour. If you aren't hurting them, you're not actually doing anything that's relevant to the discussion.

"The court finds that there is no evidence for these allegations of the deliberate creation of an addictive game," the judge wrote.

That means the court doesn't actually understand anything about game design or addiction, because pretty much everything about every "live service" game is deliberately created to be addictive in various ways.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

melee on shoulder buttons instead of square/triangle isn't good

Why?

Hard_Light posted...

dee el cee

it's only like $2 too

What a ripoff. That's the equivalent of a $40 DLC for a $60 game, so it'd better be good.

(Sarcasm, if that's unclear)

Shananagainz posted...

Just bought this last night. Excited to try it out.

It's really way more fun than it has any right to be.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I base it on what I see in life Which is very different from the evidence science has collected

And this right here should tell you to re-evaluate what you see. Those who have made careers out of analyzing such matters aren't automatically going to be right about them in every case, but if they disagree with your impression as a layperson, there's a very good chance your impression is wrong and you should put some effort into reconciling your views. You may in fact not be wrong, but you need to put work into proving yourself right that measures up to the work that's already been done that proves you wrong if you want to legitimately believe that.

To further drive the point home, what you're doing is identical to the thought process followed by anti-vaxxers: They don't see the harm associated with vaccine-preventable illnesses and they do see what their layperson interpretation leads them to believe is evidence of vaccine injuries, so they ignore what those who understand the illnesses and the true nature of those apparent injuries say about the overall risk analysis and erroneously conclude that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. It's a terrible idea there, and it's a terrible idea here and anywhere else you might think to employ it.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially if were talking about parents of friends and family, as it was a different time

A different time in which it was socially acceptable and the fact that it does more harm than good had yet to be determined. That's what I'm getting at with the ignorance/misinformation point, and that's really the only salient manner in which the times differ.

LinkPizza posted...

I never said they tried everything

LinkPizza posted...

if nothing else works

In order to determine that nothing else works, you need to try everything.

LinkPizza posted...

That said, Im not every sure that everything they could have tried would be feasible or better

Feasibility can be a question, especially when it comes to cases where the root issue requires actual therapy (which is often prohibitively expensive), but virtually everything else is going to have fewer negative effects than spanking.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is that its still hard to tie it to one thing Especially when nobody is usually around the kid 24/7 And even then, it still could end up being hard to prove what caused it

Take a step back and think about what you're suggesting: That in every single study on spanking that has ever associated it with negative outcomes, every single subject who experienced negative outcomes and was also spanked just happened to have some other experiences that led to those negative outcomes independently of spanking, that were not noticed or accounted for by those conducting the studies. Even more ridiculously, you're saying this not based on conducting your own review of a significant, representative sample of these studies and finding methodological errors that would create a significant risk of the study's conclusion being affected by confounding variables, you're saying this because you think it might be an issue but refuse to put any actual thought or effort into forming your opinion.

Quite simply, you've already decided what you want your opinion to be, and you're ignoring reams upon reams of actual empirical evidence collected by people who know far more about the subject than you ever will in favour of your vague hunch that you could maybe sort of be right if all of those people made a mistake that you aren't going to think about the plausibility of. Stop it. That's not how logic and reasoning work.

Again, I understand the reluctance to accept that spanking is bad. You know people who have spanked their kids whom you would broadly consider to be good people, so when faced with the idea that they're actually child abusers, you end up with no shortage of cognitive dissonance. Accept that. You can recognize that those people did something wrong and still consider them to be good people. As far as child abuse goes, spanking is pretty mild and is often done out of ignorance and misinformation instead of genuine malice or abusive tendencies, so it's not particularly hard to forgive others (or yourself) for making that mistake instead of considering it a grievous moral failure. Do not, however, try to justify the behaviour by spreading further misinformation. You've been given the opportunity to know better. To act as though you haven't is a moral failure.

They won't be testing for anything else, but you should absolutely be telling your doctor about every single psych med you're taking such that it shouldn't be possible for a test to detect something they don't already know about. Psych meds can behave very unpredictably and dangerously if you take them the wrong way, and any directions your doctor has given you take those behaviours and potential interactions into account. If you're taking something your doctor doesn't know about, though, their prescription won't be based on that and you could end up with a very dangerous interaction. Don't mess around with psych meds.

LinkPizza posted... Idk

I think theres usually something better that works. But sometimes, when nothing else works for certain children, a spanking might work No guarantees, but it can work in some cases where nothing else does

Absolute statements are often a bad idea, I feel very comfortable guaranteeing that absolutely none of the people whose anecdotes you're sharing have truly tried everything else. They tried a couple different things, got frustrated, and enjoyed the immediate results of taking out those frustrations physically instead of putting actual effort into finding an alternative.

LinkPizza posted...

That said, even the negative things that happen to people could have been caused by something else

Competent experimental design minimizes that possibility to enough of an extent that they can much more credibly say "spanking is the most likely causal variable here" than you can say "well maybe there was just something else you didn't notice in all of those different cases."

Krow_Incarnate posted...

The problem is that it's existence pretty much outright killed the character action games like DMC and Ninja Gaiden. Devil May Cry 5 was literally the only game of its type that we got throughout the entire last generation, where every single other game that came out that had a claim of any kind to the action genre, was a freaking soulslike.

I'm not sure how you're defining "last generation," but Platinum has kept producing such games pretty much continuously over the last decade without particularly straying into Soulslike territory. DmC and DMC5 both exist (2013 and 2019, respectively), various Musou games keep showing up each year (which is a different style of game, but still definitely "action")... Sure, there are tons of games trying to cash in on the Soulslike bandwagon, but it's not like there's a shortage of action games that don't.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Soulslike is fine on its own, but it's irreparably f***ed the industry.

Did you feel the same way about MMO's in 2005? Or rhythm games in 2008? Or JRPG's in 1994? Battle royale games/modes in 2018? Survival crafting games in 2012?

The sub-genre's popular right now. That means you're going to get a lot of people trying to cash in on that popularity when they decide what sort of game to make, but that's just the current trend. That trend will pass and other genres will become the new flavours of the month. To hate the sub-genre for "ruining the industry" is myopic and melodramatic.

LinkPizza posted...

If another discipline strategy works

There's almost always something else that will work better than spanking. That's the simple reality of the matter. People cling to spanking because they don't want to have to think or admit that their family/friends were/are physically abusive, but pretending that truth doesn't exist doesn't make it any less true.

bo_danvers posted...

Not that I completely disagree, but just because a study is "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean it is a quality study.

It does, however, make it more credible than "I was spanked and I turned out fine, so spanking is okay!" Especially where, by saying that, you are literally justifying the use of violence to solve a problem that can be solved non-violently, demonstrating that you did not, in fact, "turn out fine."

captainjeff87 posted...

I usually hate the rogue like genre but Hades was an exception since there is progression as opposed to starting fresh each run making everything you do pointless since it doesn't carry over to future runs like most other games in the genre

That's the main distinction between Roguelike and Roguelite (at least, as the terms are used in the modern gaming discourse): If there's meta-progression, it's a Roguelite. Most Roguelike games out there these days are actually Roguelites, since a lot of people share your opinion that making some sort of overall progress is a stronger incentive to keep playing than just gradually getting better through practice with each successive run (especially where that also happens in Roguelites).

captainjeff87 posted...

Also also for those saying there are no romance options haven't played enough of it but I won't say any further

Who said there are no romance options?

Conner4REAL posted...

Or in real life provided its not excessive or unwarranted.

Given that there are almost no situations where another discipline strategy won't work just as well or better, it's almost always excessive and unwarranted.

I'm pretty sure a moo-lawn is more commonly called a "pasture," but whatever works for you.

Can't say I was expecting that, but I'm here for it. Hades was amazing, let's hope they can strike gold twice.