Keyrock

I had forgotten about Dandelion being playable in TW2. You get to play as him for, what, all of 2 minutes? Hopefully the second playable character in TW3, whoever it is, gets a more meaningful part.

You get to ride the dragon! Weeeee!

Ciri seems to make the most sense as the second playable character. CDPR have repeatedly stated that Geralt's story would be over after this game, but they never stated that they would cease making games set in the Witcher universe, and, quite frankly, they'd be fools to abandon what is now an established and profitable franchise. So, assuming they make a 4th Witcher game, Ciri would make the most sense as the protagonist. She's partially trained as a witcher, partially trained as a sorceress, and 100% badass. Letting you play as Ciri in this game would, as Lexx hinted, familiarize players with the idea of her being a protagonist, for future games. I still wish it was Dandelion as the other playable character, but he's not in that trailer, so that's out.

Market abolitionism, eh? Much like Marxism, and there is more than just a little overlap here, it's an idea that at first may sound good in theory, but in practice has been shown to have terrible results, with the economic model replacing free markets either almost immediately failing spectacularly or, over time, transforming into something, quite frankly, sinister and tyrannical.

What if they pull a swerve and let us play as Eredin Bréacc Glas for a bit?

Thoughts from the award show: I have to admit, I got a little choked up when they gave the award to Ken and Roberta Williams. I grew up on Sierra On-Line, that company will always hold a very special place in my heart. I'm still conflicted about the new King's Quest. On the one hand, it's a new King's Quest, which is a bit of a dream come true. On the other hand, it;s not being made by Roberta Williams, and I don't know how to feel about that. I really hope it doesn't suck. No Man's Sky, while it looks great in many ways, still seems like they completely missed in the scale department. Now, this is probably a purposeful decision, in the interest of keeping gameplay faster, but one thing I love about space games is the sense of scale, of feeling like a tiny speck in a GIANT universe. Seeing a planet start out as a dot way off in the distance and slowly grow into a giant so huge it fills your entire field of vision and beyond. The transitions in No Man's Sky, at least in their trailers, from going from deep space to being on the planet's surface, happen so quickly that it completely misses that sense of scale and makes the planets feel small.

That's kind of how I imagine this will happen. For example, when you finally find Ciri as Geralt they will have a conversation and Ciri will recount her tale of what she went through the past few days and you'll essentially get to play that retelling. I guess we'll find out in February.

I'd very much be pro-playable Ciri. Of course, no confirmation yet on which will be the second playable character. Vesemir (or another witcher) would likely be the easiest to implement, since he wouldn't play all that differently than Geralt. Playable Ciri would be pretty sweet. A playable sorceress would be pretty great (presumably Triss or Yennefer). Playable Zoltan would be cool. My ultimate dream, though, would be playable Dandelion. Dandelion isn't a warrior or spellcaster, so you'd have to talk/charm/scam your way through situations. That would be awesome.

Yikes, things got a bit heated back there. Let's keep it civil folks. For all my disagreements with Bruce, and we very much disagree a lot, he's at least reasonable enough to listen to opposing arguments and engage in debate, even if that debate sometimes feels like banging my head against a brick wall (Bruce may well feel the same way about some of us), something many of the ultra extreme far-left-wingers won't even entertain. Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I, myself, have in the past (and may in the future) had moments where I've let emotions get the best of me and reacted/replied in a more aggressive and insulting manner than I should have. For that, I apologize, to anyone I've offended. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that we (again, myself very much included) could maybe refrain from making character attacks on forum members. Those really aren't going to help anything or anyone.

Ah, the good ol' Platinum Games brand of sheer over the top lunacy. I love Platinum Games so much.

Well, I hope this gets picked up for a second season. Episode 7 was, in my opinion, easily the best episode of the show so far. That was, for my tastes, a legitimately entertaining episode, and the first episode that I would honestly labels as "good". John is still way too much of a nice guy and the episode ended too cleanly for my tastes (though repercussions were at least hinted at), but I found the episode compelling and we finally have something of a legit season-long (potentially multi-season, assuming it gets that chance) arc in the works.

It's now become a catchall phrase meaning someone who doesn't share a SJW's point of view. In fairness, the term "social justice warrior" is itself a catchall that lumps together a spectrum of radical far-left-wingers.

Well, he clearly won because he's a misogynist, cisgendered, sexist, neckbeard troll. That's clearly why he's so popular with gamers (you know, the target audience). Not because he gives clear, detailed, insightful information and opinion, being objective to the best of his ability, clearly disclosing his biases, and even going out of his way to entertain potential opposing viewpoints, in the interest of giving consumers as much constructive information as possible so that they can make an informed purchasing decision. Nope, that couldn't possibly be why he's so popular. He's clearly popular because hate movement. Edit: In fairness, the British accent probably counts for something too. Everyone loves a British accent... Except the French, likely.

You can do that if you want, but I don't see why you would. Target didn't do anything wrong. I disagree. In my judgement, they did do something wrong. Legally, they didn't do anything wrong, what they did was well within their rights. But, to me, as a consumer, they followed through and decided to acquiesce to the demands of a group of protesters (much of their argument is based on false pretenses, but that's besides the point). The protesters have a right to protest and Target Australia has a right to pull any product off their shelves for any reason. As a consumer, I have a right to voice my displeasure with a retail outlet (or protest, if I want to take it that far) and to take action, whether that means (and not limited to) starting a petition, picketing, or simply voting with my wallet, or any combination thereof. Sure, what Target Australia did is well within their legal rights, I'm not in any way disputing that. I am also well within my legal right to voice my displeasure and to boycott their company because they acted in a way I saw unfit (same as the "concerned parents" that petitioned to get the game pulled off the shelves in the first place were well within their rights to do so, even if they used false arguments). Simply put, as a consumer, if a company acts in a way I deem unfit (not in a legal way, this is strictly in my own judgement as to what I think is right or wrong) I will act on it. Depending on the level of breach of trust, and my previous relationship with said company, my actions may include simply a letter/email stating my displeasure, or a letter/email stating my displeasure and an outright boycott of said company. That is my right as a consumer. I decide when and where I spend my money. The bottom line, with businesses, is that money speaks. Whatever moral or ethical reasons are out there, those all take a back seat to the almighty (Australian) dollar. If a company feels they will lose profits because of something, they will not go through with it/stop doing it. It's really that simple. Profit speaks, everything else is a distant, very distant, second in business. Target Australia felt that they needed to acquiesce to the petitioners because the potential loss of profit (from the people petitioning) was greater than the loss of profit they would have made on the game sales. If enough people show them (not just with words, but with actions, i.e. not shopping there any more) that their calculations were wrong and that they are losing more money by pulling the game off the shelves then they would have lost to the petitioners, then I GUARANTEE the game would magically reappear on store shelves.

The thing about Target Australia pulling GTA V off store shelves. First, much of the reasoning behind it (the arguments sent forth by the concerned petitioners and gobbled up by Target Australia) are just plain false. That said, Target Australia, as a private company, can choose to sell or not sell (within legal limits) any product it desires. They are well within their rights to pull GTA V. To Rockstar and Take Two this means nothing. They've already made a fortune off the game in the first release and another fortune off the game the second time around. This crap is a hilarious joke to them. Will it damage their reputation? Let's see how GTA VI sells. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it makes ridiculous amounts of money. Heck, this "controversy" may help them get more sales. Here's the thing. If I was a gamer in Australia, what I would do is write a letter/email to Target Australia telling them I was unhappy with their decision and I would no longer shop at any of their stores, not for video games, not for clothes, not for furniture, not for electronics, not for anything. The most important part is following through with it. If you state you will boycott their stores then still shop there, that means nothing, you need to stick to it. Now, if just one person does that, it means nothing to Target Australia, whooptie doo. But if 10,000 or 100,000 people all do that, then it will get their attention. Not happy with Target Australia? Then let them know and never shop there again. I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that would love to have your business. Vote with your wallet (as well as your mouth).

No need to comment on the text, it speaks for itself. I'm wondering if I can get my hands on a replica of that sweet shirt. I've seen others wearing one. I've done some google searching with no luck. I gotta get me a shirt like that. Edit: And, if anyone is wondering, I would like to get a shirt like that both because I think it's a bitchin' (while still tacky as ****) shirt and because it's a **** you to SJWs.

Moar Cap'n Toad Even the greatest of treasure hunters must take a break once in a while Look at him holding his breath All hail Toadbert

So, apparently, from now on, DeMarco Murray shall be known as "Spray Tan". I gotta admit, that's a pretty great nickname.

Cap'n Toad: Treasure Tracker - I definitely like it a lot so far. Of course, I absolutely love puzzle games, so the game very much caters to my likes. So far, just getting the star to finish each course has been quite easy, however finding all the gems and completing the secret challenge can get quite tricky. As you would expect from a Nintendo 1st party game, it's flat out beautiful (Nintendo's ability to create a great aesthetic is almost unmatched), overflowing with charm, and the production values are top notch. Also, it makes really good use of the Wii U gamepad. Hopefully the levels keep getting more difficult and more complex as I get further into the game.

I didn't mind cars becoming useless. Running through the streets at hyper speed with stuff blowing up left and right and soaring through the skies are things I found extremely fun, plus it cut down travel time a lot, which I found highly beneficial. I know this is a divisive issue and many people very much disliked Saints Row abandoning the gang gameplay, but I'm very happy they did. I love that they went full on ridiculous. As for Steelport, agreed 100%. Steelport was a pretty dull sandbox to begin with. Having it recycled for a second game didn't do it any favors.

Cap'n Toad

In that case, while neither game is one I would have any desire to play, I support both games right to exist. In the case of the child-rape simulator, it's a moot point, in the US anyway, since that would be very much illegal. As for the holocaust simulator, yes, I support its right to be sold.

And the winner for most ludicrous argument of the week featuring a spectacularly implausible scenario is Congratulations, your have earned the prestigious mental gymnastics gold medal! Please rise as the national anthem from whatever country Barothmuk is from plays. ♫♪ ♫♫♪ ♬♫♫ ♬♬

My favorite part of that article is at the end where the author loudly proclaims (I imagine he's beating his chest while he does it) that Rockstar is going to "learn a hard lesson" from this. What "hard lesson" are they learning, exactly? GTA V made a bajillion dollars the first time around, setting all types of records, and it's making a somewhat smaller, yet still thoroughly impressive, bajillion dollars this time around. Australia, quite frankly, is a rather insignificant market, in the grand scheme of things. Plus, the people that really want the game will just get it anyway, just from other outlets. While Rockstar and Take Two are swimming in their swimming pools full of money, Scrooge McDuck style, I'm sure this "hard lesson" is really eating them up.

He won't win it, because he's not a QB, so he's not "important enough", but DeMarco Murray is a MVP candidate as far as I'm concerned. Dude is beastin' this year.