Bartimaeus

Yeah, but Lara Croft looks too soft for the role, too. P.S. I'm not a Tomb Raider (or Star Wars) fan, so it makes little difference to me.

I know "mansplaining" (man + explaining) has been for a while, so it wouldn't surprise me if it is.

In regards to getting to the crux of articles like you'd find on "journalism" and "news" websites? No, not really. In regards to other things? Sure...but only as much as you'd find here - it is essentially a giant web forum after all, albeit one with heavy populist tendencies and informal rules.

Yeah, another awful way of doing advertisements. Not that my eternal and passionate hatred of YouTube, as somebody who's actually uploaded crap to it, is really impacted by such. YouTube has been so horribly mangled by Google in such a vast myriad of ways, that the obnoxious advertisements basically aren't even on the radar for me.

You know, I don't actually mind advertisements - they're pretty important for the industry, and if I'm regularly using a website, generally speaking, I want to support that website and advertisements are usually the most realistic way of doing that, right? What I actually hate, though, is the way they're very often used on journalism and news websites, which includes videos with audio autoplaying, advertisements placed right in the middle of articles, way too much horizontal space being sacrificed for the sake of advertising, automatic content generation and advertisements as you go down the page, etc. Yeah, you might not suffer from all of those if you're using an AdBlocker...but the point is, things shouldn't be so horrid where we're basically being forced to use AdBlockers on these sorts of websites to be able to use them to begin with...and yet, they are. P.S. I obviously don't use Lifehacker and haven't visited it in a while, so I can't make exact claims for Lifehacker specifically, so you kinda win that point by default.

Unless Mr. VC is actually being physically harmed or threatened, I'm not sure your sentence is literally even possible.

Okay, so after hearing "isometric Dragon Age 2", this is about the SECOND harshest way I think you could describe the game. However, just because Oblivion completely sucked at using this kind of system, doesn't mean it has to, too.

I totally misread your post the first time around, whoops. How about we just call the two prospects roughly even?

Which is funny, because they do the opposite for me: on reddit, I can get straight into the details of any post or thread, no advertisements, no gimmicks, no BS. If it's a link to something off-site, like one of your so-called "articles", there are people that automatically transcribe said articles into posts which get voted to the top of the thread so you don't have to go off-site - which is good, because I don't want to give any of these terrible "journalism" websites page-clicks, anyhow. On the garbage "journalism" websites like Lifehacker and Cracked and such, everything is formatted to be loads of long-winded bullcrap with useless fluff everywhere, there are advertisements everywhere, they use garbage formatting techniques like splitting up things into different pages and into slideshows or randomly repeating bits already said but in a bigger font - it's awful, and I hate it. It's also pretty safe to say that I will never go back to willingly using that sort of media except when I have to, or when it's deserving. Web "journalism" like Gawker and Lifehacker? Heh, no. Outlets who actually put out quality and original work without the fluff? Yeah, sure.

I'm getting terrible flashbacks to Oblivion...

It's some sort of variant of it is, yes. "Terra" is Latin for Earth. (e): "tus" translates to Frankincense in Latin. Probably isn't what's meant, though,

Yeah, so is Vox Media, so that's not really saying much. (e): Gawker Media, not Vox Media, but Vox Media is, too

Given that the only sections I basically ever check are Way Off Topic and Computer and Console (...and I guess Skeeter's Junkyard and Obsidian General, but hardly anything there is ever posted to either so it's irrelevant), I can't really comment. Personally? Though there are virtually infinite things I disagree with people on here, there are only 2, maybe 3 people whose posts I feel are categorically, systematically, and universally useless, awful, and a waste of time to read and who shouldn't be allowed to even be here. You can probably guess one of them. Everyone else? Disagreements aplenty, but they're respectful disagreements and I'm not really fazed by such. ...Now how everybody thinks of me is an entirely different matter.

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless.

...which the vast majority of they steal from reddit and other places.

To pull a Raithe: (posted on Mr. Hogan's Twitter)

https://puu.sh/mphHU/bcdf7c4ce5.jpg y my images no work

The fact that Gawker has been held liable for damages that may or may not run them out of business and consequently indirectly punish their employees (both those guilty and not guilty of the wrongdoing that's causing Gawker to be held for damages) is, by my own estimation, primarily Gawker's (and their guilty employees') fault, not anybody else's. I feel bad for those who haven't done anything who may lose their jobs as a result, but I blame solely Gawker and their fellow employees who did wrong for it. If Gawker doesn't have the money to get away with doing illegal stuff...then maybe they shouldn't have done that illegal stuff. You won't see me saying, "But I don't have the means to withstand the results of a murder trial!" after I decide to murder somebody and get arrested for it, even if it hurts the rest of my family and friends in the process. ...P.S. I prefer just being openly aggressive rather than passive-aggressive, personally...but that's just me.

Yeah, it's a good thing I didn't like, you know, mention other things being included in those safety precautions that I've stressed multiple times, like lights on his vehicle that he was driving on the road at night or anything, otherwise your argument would've totally fallen apart!

Are you...replying to yourself?

Why is every image link in your post broken? (e): Oh, because they're all hosted on that garbage* Russian Facebook clone. Hmm, yes. (e): *Not that it's any worse than the real Facebook, mind you. I did say "clone", after all - the garbage is inherited.

I'm caught up on Better Call Saul now. I honestly like it better than Breaking Bad so far - hope that continues.

Yeah, seriously: the camera and the floaty controls were like the worst part of that game. PoE's Unity Engine as well as the Infinity Engine literally any and every day over it, thank you.

No, but lights on his vehicle that he was driving on a road with other other vehicles during the night that without evidently made him invisible to others would've - or simply not driving on the road with a vehicle that has no lights would've also prevented his death in this situation. I'm not sure if it's illegal to be doing what he did, but clearly, legality doesn't match up with reality even if it's not, since he's now dead as a result of a horrific accident that could've been prevented had proper safety precautions been exercised, as I said (and if everyone involved hadn't been additionally horribly unlucky). No, a helmet wouldn't have prevented the accident, but it may have prevented his death. I am sorry, but if somebody jumps in front of my vehicle while I am driving, and gives me little to no opportunity to prevent the oncoming horrific accident because they didn't exercise proper safety precautions that would've let me seen that they were there before I was already running them over, and I end up ending their life as a result of this situation, well, it's suffice to say that I don't think there's any way you're going to convince me that the results of the situation are not perfectly explainable by that person's actions (or lack thereof) in addition to simple awful luck. In addition, I would absolutely see myself (as well as him) as the victim of bad luck AND bad decision making. That's...simple reality, my friend: there's damage for all parties involved. Your words, not mine. You'll note that I said "either" in that sentence, the implication being that both are victims of bad luck and bad decision-making.

That seems just about the harshest way you could possibly describe a game.