PK htiw klaw eriF

Not if you want a refund on a 30 second game. 2 hours is fairly reasonable, you have plenty of time to get a feel for gameplay and have a better idea if this is something you want to play for a while. My problem with your suggestion is that with multiplayer mainly games that have a 4 hour single-player campaign, 5% can be eaten up by cinematics and tutorials.

30 second game? I'd ask for a refund If I spent more than a dollar on something like that. If anything, wouldn't gamers be more likely to buy a game from Steam if they knew they could return it if they didn't like it or it doesn't work on their PC?

http://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/ Steam is now offering refunds for games played less than 2 hours. What do you guys think?

I'm looking for something to watch, any recommendations?

This one? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/ Seems fairly mild IMO.

I'm surprised Anne Rice is on twitter, but yeah it isn't shocking to see this.

Well, there is problem - true communism never existed anywhere. Russians just use this ideology to get their imperium up and running. Lenin at least try to look as communist (and evil one to core) but from Stalim onward it was just dictatorship as any other I thought Lenin said his government was State Capitalist?

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail? I think Adam Sandler should go to jail. Good idea. Hotel Transylvania is a crime against humanity.

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right. As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do. But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!" In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer). So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent. But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention? What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail? I think Adam Sandler should go to jail.

I'll probably pick it up on a sale...like I did with most things I have a passing interest in.

https://archive.is/j7x2t I've always wondered why people who seem to dislike videogames get a low-paying(from what data I've seen) job writing about them. I mean I get that Polygon is more a political site these days, but couldn't they start a blog centered around liberalism instead of doing videogame press? http://nichegamer.com/2015/06/saudi-arabia-enacts-new-rating-system-will-also-seek-ban-on-certain-games/ Saudi Arabia is implementing a new rating system and possibly banning some games. If this gets called "progressive" for banning GTA, I wouldn't be surprised.

Are you contending the existence of State backed rewrites or merely the quality of their intervention?If the former, offhand I recall the Avengers sought and was denied subsidies for not being propagandistic enough (significant details obviously underwraps but the issue was with the presentation of SHIELD). Another would obviously be that Seth Rogen film that NK had a hissy-fit over. Both. If subsidies were denied for Avengers for a "wrong" portrayal as SHIELD, then why did XMFC not get similar treatment with its depiction of the US government as a sinister yet ineffective entity and the military as drones just following orders that were ready to kill the heroes of the film after being saved by them?

Yep, it's not really a subsidy in terms of money - they get to use personnel and equipment to add to authenticity, or what have you and get back PR and recruiting benefits. "Military Entertainment Complex" is a good one from these articles.Thought everyone knew it worked that way since Top Gun - in our time, at least. It seems quite a leap from a glorified consultant to state directed rewrites and government approval of scripts. Given the blog Bartho linked, X-Men First Class and Man of Steel are the two biggest capes films to get US government support and those don't paint the US military in the best light, FC more so. If this is the US government's strategy to shove in propaganda, it isn't particularly good.

But that doesn't say anything about US government subsidizing superhero films to support an ideological viewpoint. Last I looked SHIELD isn't anything resembling a military organization at any rate.

...Wait what? It's a conspiracy theory. It does suspiciously sound like something GG would have you believe. (I mean, the "evil autocratic government forcing feminism into art telling filmmakers how they can portray stuff" part, not the "CoD is funded by the military" part.) Hence my confusion. It's possibly referring to the standards set by an agency(FCC?), but I've seen no proof of either claim. As it is, Disney and Time Warner probably have more power over any regulatory agencies than said agencies have over them. Most decisions made concerning superhero movies are done with profits in mind, not serving a vague social agenda.

...Wait what? It's a conspiracy theory.

LMAO, perfect follow up GIF. Wallow in your misery Anita, no one cares.

I quit halfway through. Was ****-tier writing and the points raised were bad.

Either McIntosh is a level 50 troll or he's insane.

You're arguing that corporations aren't influenced by what they make money off of. Part of Culture =/= Defines Culture. Seeing as I've posted a video documenting how sex is viewed in JAPANESE CULTURE, I certainly can say it's cultural. Again, if you can prove that Takaki's comments are out of place in JAPANESE CULTURE, please do so.

How is it discriminatory or offensive IN JAPAN if it meshes with JAPANESE culture? This makes no sense. Corporations are fictional entities influenced by culture. Then you're arguing using feelz instead of knowledge.

That's not an answer, and a dodge transition from "Japanese culture" to "the corporate world". It's alright if you can't back up your points, just admit it and move on. You're shifting the goal posts. Given the content in Anime, Japanse videogames, Japanse films and television, and other Japanse art comments such as those made by Takaki are not out of line with Japanese culture, more specifically Japanese pop-culture.