alanschu

The distinction is whether or not we identify with whether or not we consider trolling one of the reasons we also go online. I'd also need to see the definition of what it means to be "trolling" on the internet. I definitely get angry on the internet, and have snarked and even snapped on some people. Is that trolling? When looking at the examples listed in the article, I don't do actions like that. I don't recall if I ever did (which means if I did, I simply do not remember it anymore). Specifically: I don't really have any difficulties saying that I do not go online with the purpose of trolling. What do you mean by trolling, though, since I wouldn't be surprised if we have different definitions. Does a sarcastic, snarky remark qualify? Or does it have to be actively posting in a particular way with the sole specific purpose of antagonizing others? Somewhere in between?

Reading this made me think of all the people doing things like cutting weight prior to their "weigh in" and stuff like that. I'm sure that'd be great for long term fitness too!

You're just being pedantic with the words I'm using. You also omitted the "likely not by an insignificant amount." Sorry, but both that hammer thrower and 200m hurdler are going to kick all our asses at a whole lot of different events than the specific ones they are olympic experts in. It seems we're just arguing semantics over what the scale actually is. Given that you were the one citing olympic athletes, I find it frustrating that because I use the word "above average" (by a not insignificant amount...) you revert ALL the way back to all people, sedentary and otherwise. Despite claims otherwise, you seem closed off and narrowminded in your fitness goals at this point (which is fine, if that's what you want out of your exercise). I don't believe this is a good thing, unless your goal is specifically to become a focused showman body builder. But then this shouldn't be a "general fitness thread" because general fitness would imply general fitness, not just body building. Michael Jordan in his prime, or an olympic sprinter, isn't going to be able to powerlift as much as the competitive body builder, but I'd argue they are significantly more "good at everything" in terms of bodily fitness. To use numberman's words: Unless you're training to be an competitive expert in a particular event, I disagree with the notion that "you have to choose what you want to be good at" and feel you're undermining your general fitness if this is the mindset that you go into exercise with. And I'm not even taking into account on how improving the other aspects numbers listed (motor control and proprioception) can have benefits beyond general fitness (proprioception is immensely valuable in injury prevention).

Agreed. Good modding tools will mean that your level of technical expertise will not need to be as high, and a stronger support community for information and so forth to help you learn. Are you hoping to create the game idea portfolio to join a game development studio, or to sell the game ideas as proof of concepts? I just ask because the former will be much easier to do than the latter.

I'll be the dbag

Hahaha this description was joyously hilarious XD

That whole thing is just surreal. They linked an old steam post that shows they wouldn't bother going after TB, then denied and admitted and still denied going after the video. Then posted a video of the proof that the email wasn't faked as evidence that supports them.... It's a whole lot of O.o Now, while I'm pretty neutral on TotalBiscuit in general, I'm flabbergasted at the mere notion that he or his PR guy would risk fabricating an email, so it's hard for me to not think his side is probably not in the wrong (bizarre activity of the developers aside)

I think you've never worked in an office environment before. That is correct. Neither have I worked for a video game developer either. I'm sure they're just sitting around going "ehhhhh, we could put this in but I'd rather kick up my feet and do nothing!"

You are effectively being as dismissive as your are implying we are, with this very post. You're only encouraging me to disengage at this point... Your message is increasingly meaningless because I don't see you as someone interested in having a conversation - you've become dismissive and accusatory while utilizing hyperbole to represent mine and others arguments. I encouraged you to read it because you casually dismissed it with snark while claiming ignorance of the subject. The irony, however, of claiming that you don't understand it while dismissing it is NOT a positive reflection of your character. You're not interested in discussing anything. You're interested in mandating. I don't make the assumption that the World Health Organization is a bunch of clueless idiots. I do, however, pay close enough attention to nutrition research over the past 50 years to recognize that what we think is and is not healthy changes a lot. In other words, I'm open to the fact that experts can be fallible and not be correct (just like I can be). Further, there is research (by doctors that perhaps you should not conclude are just a bunch of clueless idiots) that shows correlations between poverty and obesity. When you say something like "you can hit [food] through direct taxation or tax examptions, which will tackle only obese people and wouldn't hit the financially weaker part of society" I can only straight up state YOU ARE WRONG. No, this doesn't mean ONLY poor people are obese, but unless you're suggesting that the causal effect is more "obese people are more likely to be poor" as opposed to "poor people are more likely to be obese" any taxation (exemption or direct, which is the same thing since it's still saying "Those we deem appropriate pay more money") is going to affect poor people more than rich people. Lets examine confounding variables too. Is our lifestyle more sedentary than it was in the past? Are things that can help with diabetes and obesity, like sports and fitness programs, prohibitively expensive (and as such perhaps an aggravating circumstance that helps influence the obesity-poverty correlation) compounding the issue? (aside: there's a correlation between sedentary activity and poverty as well!) Maybe we should tax cable/satellite TV, TV manufacturers, video game developers, and all the other aspects that have helped lead us to increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Lets get rid of escalators and elevators in buildings. Lets make the 100 closest parking stalls at shopping centers disabled only, requiring people to actually get out and walk a little ways when shopping. Maybe schools (and parents) shouldn't be so hyper protective of children during recesses and prevent them from doing a lot of physical activities. You want to discuss "the best possible solution?" I don't think it's targeting food. I think it's making fun, athletic abilities more engaging. I still play basketball to this day because I loved playing it with my friends growing up. That seed was planted because in Junior High, my family paid zero dollars in dues for me to join the basketball team. As such, I was addicted to the sport enough that I was willing to pay the $200 dues to play on my high school basketball team.

The problem with taxing food is that it, as people point out quite a lot, is that it's preventable. That means that, there are other things I can do aside from "eat less junk" to remain healthy. I make a point to not eat too much junk mostly because it helps me keep my weight stable, but the reality is I was "skinny bastard" in that I was skinny, and also a bastard because I didn't have necessarily healthy eating habits but when I go in for physicals the doctor always says "You must eat really well!" No, not really... but I am active and that makes a world of difference. So unless you're actively taxing people simply based on their weight (which is not the best measurement either, since I know triathletes that look like pudgy little guys because that's how their body is despite him having better vitals than I will ever have). The problem with taxing people based on their weight is that you run the risk of placing people in a vicious cycle. One issue with junk foods is that they are cheap, and if you start taking away people's money because they eat too much junk, you're going to predispose them to having to purchase more junk. The other thing I don't entirely trust with the government in this regard, is the lobby groups. It could be argued that the huge amount of carbohydrates recommended by the USDA were merely the result of sustained attempts to find a doctor that would endorse the idea and help press it forward. With a large chunk of farmer's dollars behind it. Food also has serious issues in that some of the stuff that was demonized (saturated fat) was replaced with "healthy alternatives" like what we eventually learned to be called "trans fat." Consequence of food intake is in such flux because there are so many confounding variables based on body types/genetics, lifestyle, and so forth. When I went to University and was a lot more sedentary, I gained some weight. I plateaued and ended up seeing huge improvements in my weight (as well as blood pressure and cholesterol) by eliminating trans fats, cutting down on carbohydrates (especially sugars), and eating more saturated fats, while maintaining my participation in some rec sports leagues. It's going to require significant changes in how we label things too, because the unfortunate thing is people see "low fat" and assume healthier (when that's possibly not true) without realizing that "low fat" typically means "high sugar" because those pesky food companies have a tendency to try to make their food tasty (which is also why salt can be an issue). While I support public health, since I see it as an investment in the human capital of a nation and ultimately a net benefit, I agree with the notion that we'd be better served trying to educate people better. Problem is that lobby funding can be a really compromising effect. I'd recommend giving it a read. I wouldn't consider it to be written at too high of a level.

Nor a reflection of what people say about him. The only people harping on him for being a good Canadian kid are people like Don Cherry. It floored me to see that Steve was 1% point off from being the only player to ever do 50-40-90 over his entire career.

Buckets of BF4 and Titanfall.

DRM tolerance is a personal thing, so I have no real beef there. The cost thing I don't care about, personally, because I pay what I feel a game is worth. If I think is worth $60, then I'll pick it up (note: Origin is having a 50% off sale by using the promo code "LOVE" so you can pick up Titanfall for $30 right now). Otherwise I'll just wait for the price to eventually drop. Though I am loathe to use the term "lazy." I have no visibility on their staffing or their budgeting or anything, but I'd be surprised if anyone on the team wasn't working very hard. I like single player experiences too (if Titanfall had it, I'd play it), but yeah it's focus is definitely multiplayer. In the early going I think it's a very well designed MP experience though. Seems to combine a lot of elements from a variety of games and has executed them pretty well from what I can tell. Code doesn't apply to Titanfall (which in retrospect is probably not surprising haha)

I have played it a few times and actually really started to enjoy it. BioWare QA had a curling team building event for fun (most of us are brutal) and my team was able to win! B-) I find it actually a pretty skillful game with interesting strategy. The sweeping warms the ice juuuuust a bit and will let the rock slide farther and is used as a way to exert control over the shot. It's basically a big physics exhibition which is probably why I find myself enjoying it, once I watched a few games with a fan that could help me understand it.

I actually agree that marketing is a bit too much (for all games, not just ours). But to be honest, marketing seems like such an engima to me because it's one of those things I don't know how you can verify. Game sold well. Good game, or did marketing help? I have no clue!!! :S Knowing Jessica, I wouldn't be surprised since she is a huge fan and participant of cosplay herself. Though justifications for doing so in that it becomes a way of getting some exposure for the game for something that is mostly pretty "fan oriented" (IMO anyways) likely doesn't hurt in deciding to go forward with it. I call it a fish helmet. I think it looks like an aquaman thing or something

Jessica Merizan is definitely not an active developer on the game itself. With regards to the content presented, a t-posed model of Morrigan is not difficult to create (since it already exists) either. We could view her in the toolset or in game, whichever you prefer! I cannot imagine this being anything but low-cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the concepts already existed in some capacity too. It's literally a consumer goodwill thing. Making a blog post is not super intensive work, and for some of the fanbase it's a "hey thanks for this I appreciate it." It comes down to "how much money do you think was spent on this?" Or time, if you prefer, since in video game develop the adage of time equaling money is pretty fair IMO. Do you feel that this had an opportunity cost that was unacceptable? What else would you like Jessica to be working on?

TITANFALL!!!!

TITANFALL TITANFALL TITANFALL TITANFALL TITANFALL TITANFALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (it's 3 AM. I'm screwed for tomorrow by dammit that was fun!)

They are equal in the sense that it's the targeted detail that someone really cares about. That someone wants to make a costume and wants it to be as accurate as possible isn't, as far as I'm concerned, someone that looks at a ruleset established as D&D and wants it to be faithfully applied, no exceptions (for better or worse). It's just another aspect of the game that someone cares about. For instance, I'm not too worried about the combat mechanics for Pillars of Eternity, because for the most part I think that Sawyer has a keen perspective and fundamentally wants to make a game that is enjoyable to play. Others are a lot more concerned and vocal about it. Some people like dressing up as characters that have fun outfits. Some people even make careers out of it. Big whoop. Sorry, when the link is posted with laughing emoticons and comments that people are deranged, it's hardly a "hehe lets all laugh together with each other" type of situation. It comes across very much as a "hey everyone, lets point and laugh." As for the content... for the most part it's a screen cap of the 3D model with the outfit on for reference, so no I am skeptical that it is something that "you would probably buy at a haberdashery shop or something similar" because it's just a 3D model of "this is what it looks like." Now people have a reference and they can make it out of whatever they want. Creators will wear it to cons, and others will go "hey nice work, love the attention to detail" and for the most part they'll share in their fandom and have a good time. And they have the angles to make it as accurate as they want if that's what they'd like to do.

You need to be in downtown seattle during PAX

With respect to Morrigan, part of the advantage is that Jessica already dressed up as Morrigan and could already pass along the information. It's not like it was work intensive for her to basically share how she made the costume. If you consider this "coaxing" as opposed to "here's the blueprint in case you're interested" then fine. Jessica's job focus is literally on the BioWare community and is an avid cosplayer herself, so to suppose that it's presumptuous that people will "automatically cosplay" the characters, and that they haven't already inquired is perhaps jumping the gun somewhat on your own part. On the last day at PAX, BioWare held a session for cosplayers to come and hang out and show their costumes off (BioWare or otherwise) and the room was filled to capacity. As for designing costumes with some cosplay feedback, the only thing that's going to do is result in costumes that are actually physically possible and less overtly physically impossible or just impractical (Armor plates on the bum may seem like a good idea at the time...). But I wouldn't at all be surprised if something like this came about as a result of consumer request. And many cosplayers love to get the little details right and accurate, the same way that a Baldur's Gate 2 fan will get up in arms about the dual wield implementation, or an Obsidian fan getting into an argument because Sawyer wants to have cooldowns be a part of the game, while others here Though I agree that I have no issue with cosplayers dressing up. The idea of shaming them comes across as throwing stones in glass houses as I've been "victim" to all sorts of judgment because I am an avid geek in a particular type of geek subculture. There's a reason why my public identity in high school was that of "basketball player" and not "hardcore computer nerd and gaming geek." I remember flooring my high school basketball teammates because I crushed them all in GoldenEye or whatever else we chose to play. I've heard it all: you like RPGs? Nerd! You're into D&D? Loser! You love Star Wars? You need to get laid. You worked on a mod for a video game? Hahahahahaha. Why do you care about some internet guy dying? It's not like its a real friend. Hearing this nonsense tends to piss me off, and I'd really prefer we not "pay it forward" by pointing and laughing at people that like to dress up as characters that many of us also like (or even dislike...). I have a friend in the 501st and her favourite cosplay she has done is Darth Nihilus. Are we condoning the shaming of someone that enjoyed KOTOR 2 so much she wanted to cosplay as one of the character? Or would we just be condoning the shaming of Obsidian if they had shared some concepts that detailed how the costume was made as a reference? It's also formal wear. I'd disagree. Plenty of shirts going around with the Nike swoosh on it. I doubt Nike is paying them for it. You are correct, though, that it probably doesn't hurt marketing or exposure.

Such a short barrel though!

I had a cousin that smoked and she had an interesting perspective on it, in that she felt that she smoked so that she could feel the same way that non-smokers normally felt (i.e. to remove the craving). Once she had that epiphany, quitting was a lot easier for her.

Lies! I don't smoke and I'm still alive!!

More IL-2 Sturmovik. Slowly ramping up the realism and learning Boom and Zoom tactics.