Elerond

VGChartz lists that D:OS sold about 300k copies on consoles most on PS4 and that Wasteland 2 sold about 130k copies on consoles. VGChartz numbers of course aren't always that accurate and they don't list digital sales (which are significantly higher on PS4 and XB1 than they were on previous generation's consoles).

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it. By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure. Also, Fargo in 2013: GG. Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.

Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game. The concept is so finely tuned, that the final design would be easy to imagine. I have not filled in each and every small detail, but doing so would be like colouring in a picture. Think of it as a masterpiece; it's a work of art, and it's very influential. You haven't done anything that comes even close to that. It is even hard to tell what is your actual concept for the game as whole. There is general sense of idea like red house, but that is quite little to go forward in building actual house.

Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game.

That isn't design, but a bit detailed concept of an idea. To make that to actual design one needs still put probably hundreds of hours in.

Suicide Squad was watchable movie, I would rank it fresh instead of rotten. I liked how Margot Robbie portrayed Harley Quinn, even though movie didn't do best job in explaining her character. But Robbie's performance is stellar Will Smith did good job as Deadshot even though I found character to be bit boring. Action sequences relied too heavily people standing still and shooting CGI monsters to them to be exciting. But overall tone of movie is funny, which is improvement to super seriousness of BvS. Sadly other members of Suicide Squad are left quite unfleshed. Villain is sadly again generic, they would have made movie much more interesting if Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), person who assembles the squad , had been the villain of the story.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review This is particularly harsh "Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something."

Going to see Suicide Squad tomorrow, hopefully it isn't as bad as reviews say it is.

Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?) That speech was after WMD (chemical weapon, rockets containing sarin) were provably used in Ghouta, Syria against civilian population. Although it has been under disputation was strike done by Assad's regime or opposition, but eventually Assad's regime eventually decided to give up their chemical weapons to be destroyed.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer. You asked positive redeemable qualities about her I listed some, you dismissed them as worthless to you, so I asked if you have reason to vote Trump and you indicate that you aren't any more willing to vote for him and you think that both Clinton and Trump have done bad job to explain why you should vote them, so there really isn't any other logical conclusion than that you should look for third party candidate that you think is worth of your vote.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like.

Neither understands Putin, so I would not bet on good deal in either case. Clinton - Obama dynasty

Elerond how are things in Finland? Have you guys had anymore issue around the immigrants ? There hasn't been notable issues.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760118982393430016 It seem that Clinton worked for said company in 80s and 90s and said company gives money to charity in Clinton's name (Bill not Hilary). And said company has done business in Syria and seems to have paid taxes and bought oil from ISIS.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

Yep, i had to check OECD again. It's 6 million ethnic german men in that very important demographic, and 1.6 millions immigrants (2nd and 3rd generation turks mostly, those foreign statistics were before the immigrant crisis). It just means that that it takes 2 years longer to cross the demographic rubicon of Germany if the wave is the same as before. One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety. Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself. 1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million. I see a great conflict brewing. Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women. At least that is what Germany officially says Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future. I seriously doubt that the german authorities have to capabilities to enact them. They don't even have the full picture of how there are to begin with. Your demographics is for 2016 if you look at the raw data from UNCHR, the older ones back in september for the really big wave was 70% men. My stats are from from Eurostats for 2015 Distribution by age of (non-EU) first time asylum applicants in the EU and EFTA Member States, 2015

One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety. Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself. 1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million. I see a great conflict brewing. Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women. At least that is what Germany officially says Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

Immigration police? So, just a reminder, being in the US without proper documentation is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. BEING in the US without proper documentation is a civil offense, true. ENTERING the US illegally is both criminal AND civil. See Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), or Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) for the exact statutory language http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act Yes, but not everyone enters illegally. I have understood that majority of illegals come in USA legally, as tourists, students or workers, but don't leave after their residence visa ends. Which is why so called experts don't think that fences or walls are effective way to solve illegal immigration issue. EDIT: Although wikipedia's infallible article tells that about 6-7 million of US's illegal immigrants have illegally entered the country and about 5.5 million of illegal immigrants have overstayed their visa.

They have mentioned Q1 2017

I didn't know that Bill has changed their gender to woman

I ranked both Marvel movies better than GB 16, so where is the problem?

Today's children's programs have become so much more graphic and sexualized than those in my childhood

I did go see new Ghostbusters, I was surprised that it was actually watchable movie after all the negativity that I have heard and read. I don't think it will be similar cult classic like original, but decent and somewhat funny. Compared to other block busters that I have watched this year, it is better than Batman vs. Superman, but far from Captain America 3 and Deadpool.