Lurker > KyerWiz

Ivynn posted...

It should be a Gwent simulator with a Witcher side-game.

So a Witcher 3 re-release?

RadiantJoyrock posted...

Didn't the author cut them off? Because he's a prick?

From my understanding, the original agreement was a flat amount given to the author. With the sudden massive success of the third game, the author wanted more.

Shortly after the massive success of the tv series, they reached an agreement.

https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/media/news/cd-projekt-s-a-solidifies-relationship-with-witcher-books-author-andrzej-sapkowski/

Actors are paid for their acting and for the interest they bring to the product. When that interests turns negative, their value goes down.

A simple question, TC: why play something you clearly weren't in the mood for?

There are many, many different flavors of videogames. Some you may feel like playing some days and others simply are not something you're ever looking for. This is fine.

What is not fine is whining about a game delivering the experience it promised to deliver. Do you complain about pokmon games being kid friendly? About strategy games requiring you to think? About horror movies being scary?

The System of a Down song? It's about the Armenian genocide.

LivingLegend posted...

Not true... You dont need to train at all to become Super Saiyan.

Goten achieved it as a child.

Kids conveniently having a natural power level within the currently relevant range aside (how did Chi Chi not explode when Goten was kicking inside her?), that would be a rare exception.

Let's correct my answer: Most saiyan basically spend their whole life enduring training from hell to reach that point. I'll take Superman.

Saiyan basically spend their whole life enduring training from hell to reach that point. I'll take Superman.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Cloud wasnt actually a weakling though. He could have made it into SOLDIER based on his ability alone. Its his mental that kept him from being promoted. Supposedly the people in charge of the SOLDIER program didnt think he would be able to mentally withstand the changes

I don't know if Cloud capabilities and circumstances concerning his SOLDIER status have been explained in more details since the original game. I would assume so.

Still, in-game, we saw the MASSIVE difference in power between Cloud and Sephiroth during the flashback. Hell, it could've been part of an "unreliable narrator" but everything in the game suggests that Sephiroth was basically the strongest dude ever and Cloud a nobody at this point.

Then, somehow, Cloud overpowered Sephiroth and threw him down the reactor while being stabbed through. That moment... I don't know if it's been "explained" since, but wow did that make laugh. Mama's boy suddenly lost all that menacing aura the game had tried so hard to give him.

There are multiple factors to consider.

First, thinking about decades old music, you're going to think of the best songs, the ones that have stood the tests of times. It's not very fair to compare something like that to "whatever happens to be popular this week."

Second, the emotional history you might have behind some songs simply is not something that can be used in meaningful comparisons. "I had my first kiss to this song" doesn't say anything about the song itself, but it sure makes it special to you.

Third, what's popular changes over time. A genre you grew up with and loved might basically disappear and be "replaced" by something else entirely. It's easy to then blame that new music and not be as open-minded as you should be.

Fourth, every single generation wants to listen to music their parents hate.

Basically, it takes efforts and an open-mind to go for something new that you might dislike when you could just as easily put something you know you love.

I don't consider FF villains to be great. Among them, I would consider Kefka my favorite but he's by no mean a deep and compelling character.

He's a magic experiment driven insane that wants to end the world and have a laugh doing it. He has funny lines and manages to mostly accomplish his goal though a few twists that were uncommon at the time. The quirky miniboss that became a God and ruined the world. He's memorable.

Meanwhile Sephiroth, because we can't possibly have a Kefka topic that's not about Sephiroth, was (at least in his first appearance) all about looking cool but closer inspection made him look lame. You're actually running after Jenova all game so even his iconic moment with Aeris isn't actually his and he got beaten by a weakling SOLDIER failure in Nibelheim. Sure looks badass though.

chrono625 posted...

Who won, the guy who baited her? Or the one who had a 3 minute rant on a grade school question?

because the way I see it; his mission was to get noticed and get attention and he succeeded.

You're acting as if trolls can even win. Displaying your stupidity for all to see is not a victory.

She's a streamer. They talk while they play. She took a few minutes to rant about harassment and that ridiculous "it's just a joke!" attitude.

You took a minute to write something in response to something she did, did she win?

First I would like to point out the tweet itself:

99% of the time, I ignore trolls and ban them. 1% of the time, I do this

All those "she should've ignored it" responses need to understand this is what she does most of the time. I believe we can all understand that those kind of comments are very common. The vast majority of times, she ignores them but this time, for whatever reason, she felt like responding and it was a good response.

It wasn't a response to this one comment, it was a response to something she has to endure every single time she streams. Let it slide, pay it no mind but they keep coming. Day after day, week after week, year after year. Sometimes, you need to let off some steam.

As for the troll winning because she responded? That's ridiculous, trolls are self-defeating by their very nature. An immature idiot in need of attention but so utterly unable to get it positively that they consider being publicly ridiculed a victory. They're laughing at you, not with you.

spikethedevil posted...

This or ME3: Citadel.

The sendoff the trilogy deserved.

I knew I would regret it yet I still clicked on this topic...

superman 2000 posted...

Most people who generalize understand that it's not literally everybody. It's just enough to make for a generalization.

That's generally how generalization works, my General.

Just answer me one question, please.

We're talking about not wanting a date a fat, tattooed, with a kid or whatever else woman. Personally, I don't have an issue with that, so long as you don't turn around and say "no woman ever wants anything to do with me they all got ridiculous standards". My question is, why not simply add assholes to the list of people you don't want to date?

That fun woman who I get along with...
... is fat? No thanks
... is tattooed? No thanks
... has kids? No thanks
... is an asshole? Yes! What do you mean she's not interested in me!? INJUSTICE!!!

superman 2000 posted...

Women not wanting to date men who are short and have mediocre income is socially acceptable, but the second a man says he doesn't wanna date fat chicks with kids, he's a misogynistic loser.

superman 2000 posted...

But women do the same kind of stereotyping to men all the time.

Seeing WOMEN as one big monolithic group is a big red flag.

Some people are assholes, men and women. If a woman proves herself to be an asshole by listing a ridiculous list for someone to "be considered as potential boyfriend", then you can safely ignore her. If you're still desperate to get with a woman whom you consider an asshole, then you've got strange priorities.

The word incel comes from a group self-describing as involuntary celibates.

In reality, it is rarely used to describe that particular group but rather people "like them" and, as such, the meaning can vary.

Some will stick closer to the original meaning those are people unable to get in a relationship (usually because they're unable to attract partners due to various issues).

However, when in the context of criticizing someone by calling them an incel, it's usually more about their attitude. The people feeling entitled to have someone in love with them because they're a "nice guy". People desperate for a partner but unwilling to consider anyone not meeting some ridiculous standard. Whining about constantly being rejected while refusing to put effort in "bettering" themselves.

I doubt any significant number of them really expected to be able to get that far. They had no idea what to do once there. If everything stopped at this point, Trump strongly opposed the events and stopped inciting his base and no more protests happened, it would still be a disgrace but hardly the end of American democracy.

The problem is this set a precedent, expectations. Next time, it's very likely they will expect to get there and have actual plans. If you cannot understanding how dangerous this is, you're seriously underestimating human stupidity.

How does that guy still have a job?

You're clearly in the wrong place to ask game-related frequently asked questions.

Gamers' obsession with numerical review scores is frustrating. Some people need their game to have the best score and to argue with others that their game is trash because theirs has bigger numbers.

Reviews exist to guide you whether a game might be interesting to you or not. You can disagree with a review; you feel they put too much emphasis on something you don't care about, something they listed as negative sounds interesting to you, etc. That does not mean the review is wrong. That does not mean you are wrong. You have different opinions, it happens. Check out some others and they might align with your views better.

Hell, maybe when you'll actually play the game you'll feel that reviewer made some good points. Or that they were completely wrong.

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

they could still make a movie in the future. show the whole gang reunited several years later!

and also bring back side characters like Leonard, Starburns, Magnitude or Garrett.

Sadly, Leonard's actor, Richard Erdman, died last year.

Can I have all 3 at once?

They're a warning.

Veggeta X posted...

That has nothing to do what I'm saying at all.

I don't have a solution for the problem but extreme reactions from anyone is unproductive is my point.

You're missing the point of the reaction to the situation which will solve nothing. Without anyone sitting down and saying "Hey let's meet in the middle somewhere" then things go no where.

"Hey let's meet in the middle somewhere" is something that always sounds nice and reasonable, until you you get a situation where it doesn't apply.

Let's do something vs let's do nothing, for instance. Which happens to be a very common divide in politics. Police brutality, guns, environment, etc.

pogo_rabid posted...

People hate chris pratt now? What'd he do? He always came across as wholesome and super safe as an actor.

To my knowledge, Chris Pratt has never himself said something terrible. The criticism is mostly because of his association to Hillsong megachurch, who have been accused of being anti-LGBTQ.

Veggeta X posted...

Like I said, if it's not one extreme than it's another. For example, if a lefty don't get what he wants then he'll say something like "You're right. The police should have billions of dollars given to them so they can have military grade armor and weapons and helicopters!" as a mocking reaction. Vice versa, if police is being reformed a righty would then say "You're right. Cancel the police. Let the killers come in and steal and kill everyone!".

There needs to be a middle ground of reason with this and not much people wants to do this. People see the opposition being extreme so they feel they must do the same back.

Most common opinion about the police on the left: there is abuse and we need to look into stopping it.
Most common opinion about the police on the right: they're doing a great job as is.

What is your proposed middle ground between looking for a solution and doing nothing? Thinking of a solution then not doing it?

Batman has arrested the Joker plenty of times, it's the judiciary system that is the problem.

Either they give him the death penalty or they actually manage to keep him locked up.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Not really since every country that embraces market policies sees a decline in poverty.

Not what this topic is about however.

There is a difference between an individual's and a country's economic situations.

With proper regulations in place, capitalism can help fight poverty. Regulations like minimum wage, working hours, work conditions, etc. Without those regulations, you're dependent on the good will of a few to value their employees well-being above their profits. That's not a bet I'd be willing to take, especially where unskilled workers are concerned.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Notice how you had to quote that out of context

Let's take whole quote in context:

Broseph_Stalin posted...

People aren't pushed into poverty by capitalism lmao the exact opposite happens.

Yep, still absolutely ridiculous.

Pure unregulated capitalism is about maximizing profits. Pay your worker the least you can and get the most out of them as possible. Someone barely able to feed themselves whiles working 80 hours a week was very common before... compromises to capitalism were made. Unskilled workers are considered quite expendables in a capitalistic system.

Are we speaking about actual definitions of the far left and far right or about the "Obama is a communist" definitions? Assuming the first.

Both extremes have certainly been historically terrible and usually end up in violent oppressions. One could argue that corruption and other human faults have perverted what they were supposed to be and a "pure" representation could work. I think if your system depends on people being "perfect", that system is never going to be more than an utopia.

Boring answer: someone who'd stand farther to the left on an "objective center" is likely to believe the far left is better (and vice versa) as it is closer to their beliefs.

ledbowman posted...

bernie fans not voting for hillary doesn't refute the "vote blue no matter who" zombies. you can't be serious

What I'm arguing since the beginning is that Democrats as a whole are much more likely to hold their representatives accountable. What even is your point by now? That some of them don't? No shit, Sherlock.

Over 80 millions people voted for Biden, you're going to find a lot of different people in there. Some absolutely adore Biden and will consider him the best President of all time the minute he's sworn in. Others, hate him only slightly less than Trump and might even regret their vote eventually. And yes some of them are simply always voting for the Democratic candidate, never even caring who it is and what they want to do.

What I'm talking about are proportions of those voters and representatives. For all that talk of Never Trumpers, moderate Republicans and the like, Trump still got more votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Even now, there is a disgustingly high amount of people absolutely convinced of voter fraud on nothing but his incoherent ramblings. Consistently, for the last 4 years, Republican representatives have been "concerned" over Trump words and actions yet they kept enabling him every single step of the way. This is the level of accountability in the Republican party right now and it is incredibly low.

On the Democrat side, it is demonstrably higher. It is not the mythical "every single voter denounces them when there's anything wrong" you seem to be asking for but, ideological debates in the party are basically happening every other week. The moderates/progressives divide is a well-known one that, even while facing someone like Trump, never completely went away. You can't seriously be blind enough to have missed "progressives make moderates lose votes" vs "candidates supporting progressives policies have all won their elections" on this very forum. As for representatives themselves, there have been many criticisms slung by and at Sanders, AOC and the others.

In short, if you think progressive voters and progressive representatives are going to blindly accept everything Biden does like Republicans did for Trump, you might be surprised.

ledbowman posted...

trump literally just lost

you could also say this about republicans

there are a good number of gop voters who will not vote for the squishy middle

Keep moving that goalpost. You said "vote blue no matter who", I pointed out all candidates were known and agreed to be better than Trump. You said "they say it every election", I pointed out the people were clearly not voting blue no matter who in previous elections. So your comeback is "what about this election" ? We're going to go in circles here.

There are people who legitimately support a politician and believe they are the best for the job. They will try to gain support for their candidate. This is normal. In extreme cases such as the 2020 elections, people will rally to someone they don't like all that much because the alternative is that much worse. This is still normal.

Republicans "being concerned" about Trump then enabling him at every turn is not normal, it is not accountability.

ledbowman posted...

dude they say it every election

Yet Clinton also lost because Bernie Bros didn't support her? You can't have it both ways.

Of course people are going to try to get support for their candidate. That's, like, the very foundation of democracy? That doesn't mean they're always successful.

Against a less hated opponent, many progressives will stay home instead of voting for a candidate they feel is too moderate. If progressives somehow got one of theirs as the candidate, I assume a good number of moderates would stay home.

We live in an era where every single person can give their opinion. There are a LOT of people who actively look at whatever dumb take they can find. Look guys, this person with 12 followers has tweeted something stupid! That means the entire *group this person associates with* thinks that!

Just remember one very basic thing in life: you can't please everybody. No matter what you say or do, some people are going to dislike it. Comedians offending people is absolutely nothing new. So long as they punch up instead of punching down, they'll have more fans than critics.

ledbowman posted...

there are rightists who hate trump. having different wings of a party doesn't mean there arent a lot of slavishly devoted democrats into will follow the dnc to war, corrupt economic policy, ect. and any way that's not a meme or whatever billshit that guy was trying to sell

Republicans are "concerned" over Trump's latest bullshit. Republicans still support him saying "he learned his lesson". Rinse and repeat for 4 years.

Of course there are democrats who will blindly follow the leaders, but there is a lot more diversity among the members and, as such, a lot more accountability.

ledbowman posted...

also lots of dems wanted franken to stay and roy moore literally lost so ur not really saying anything

A pedophile narrowly losing an election vs a photo in bad taste followed by a resignation is "not really saying anything" about accountability. Sure buddy.

Edit:
ledbowman posted...

vote blue no matter who

We knew who the Republican nominate was going to be, we knew who the Democrats candidates were. Yes, every single Democrat candidate was a better choice than Trump even *shudders* Bloomberg.

As opposed to conservatives "jokes" ?

ledbowman posted...

no they don't. what are you even talking about lol

Ever heard of progressives vs moderates? What happened with Al Franken vs what happened with Roy Moore?

Identity is a complex and personal subject. Some people figure it out quickly, others take a while and some even live their whole life without figuring it out.

I understand the importance of labels, representation and role models. Knowing that there are people that are feeling the same way you do is a great comfort.

But, anyone who has struggled with their identity should know the importance of accepting who they are instead of pretending to keep other people happy. If Page coming out as a lesbian helped you accept yourself, that's great. I hope that, since then, you grew more confident in your identity and know who you are. Page coming out as trans does not affect your own identity, he simply got a better understanding of himself. Be happy for him, don't be like one of those "you should try to be straight" asshole.

3PiesAndAFork posted...

How can anyone argue against them all being cultists? It's clear as day.

Some of them are well-aware that Trump is full of shit but benefit from him anyway. Some simply live in an echo chamber and do not possess the intellectual curiosity to question things they're told.

Not every Trump supporter is a cultist but there is a disproportionate amount of them who left all common sense behind a long time ago.

WingsOfGood posted...

Why wouldn't they be? They already were. Does this announcment mean that changes?

I am not Elliot Page and I won't pretend to know what he wants. Hence the if. I could understand being fine with it (actors act as I said) or preferring to make a clean divide.

But yes, I was simply saying that, as long as he's fine with it, I see no reason why Umbrella Academy couldn't keep going as is.

BeyondWalls posted...

Somewhere an Umbrella Academy producer is screaming into an empty bag of Doritos.

I mean, its great Eliot found himself. But were talking about an industry where getting a new hairstyle can be seen as a contract violation. Some high profile stars arent even allowed to breath wrong for fear that their insurance company will drop them if the studio sues. I wouldnt be surprised at all if Netflix doesnt just quietly cancel Umbrella Academy a few months from now. They are now in a no-win scenario. Every single choice will lead to a backlash from some other group. Forcing Eliot to play a woman and not working in a trans character? Backlash. Drastically rewriting source material to incorporate Eliot? Backlash. Recasting a trans actor? Backlash. Having Vanya living off screen? Backlash. Theres no way out.

They will obviously need to sit down and discuss what happens next but, if Page is comfortable with it, I see no reason why he couldn't play a female character. Actors act.

dj4242 posted...

Im confused. This person is in a relationship with another woman, turned herself into a man through surgery and says they are still queer but with a pronoun of he.

Sounds.... like its a normal relationship now not a lesbian one?

I dont know how this shit works Im so confused

Labels are just labels, a simplistic way to classify people. He clearly was searching himself for a while and now seems to have come to find an answer.

Jordan Peterson likes "exploring ideas". Problem is a lot of those ideas are ridiculous for a number of reasons but he rarely bothers pointing that out until he's being confronted about it.

Then, some people will agree with those ideas and will repeat them. And, really, people who like to listen to Jordan Peterson can't shut up about him. Usually, it doesn't go any farther than that. In some cases however, they'll start digger deeper and fall further and further down the alt-right, incel or whatever else hole.

He's similar to Rogan in a way, an "introduction to potentially terrible ideas". Obviously, they both differ very much in how they do it as Peterson is very well-read about what he's talking about while Rogan is an ignorant buffoon who will invite anyone and let them say anything.

Romulox28 posted...

the democrats spent like 4 years trying to prove that russia rigged the election lol

Russia has interfered with the elections, this was known and proven even before the 2016 elections were over. This is a fact that is only disputed by Trump because he "asked Putin and he said no".

The Mueller investigation was about the involvement of the Trump campaign with said interference, whether they merely benefitted from it or if they actively took part in it. Mueller was not able to prove they were. Then there's the whole obstruction of justice but that's another subject.

You'd think you'd learn the very basics of something the democrats "spent like 4 years on".

VTBM posted...

It's okay when the left does it.

Clinton conceded the day after the elections. Voters complained about the EC and how Clinton lost despite having received more votes but never pretended she was going to be the next President.

The only one whining about fraud was Trump who couldn't accept having lost the popular vote and launched an investigation he quietly killed when he couldn't get any evidence. Not that it ever stopped him from making the same bullshit claims about illegal votes he's making right now.

Please join us in the real world someday.