Amentep

I never said I needed a gun period, much less an assault rifle to protect myself. All I was addressing was the assertion that people in the suburbs never encounter any wildlife. Where I live, in particular, can go from urban to suburban to rural to "Dueling Banjos" in a short driving distance. And racoons and coyotes are most likely seen here when they're rabid, in which case their timidity (and even nocturnal nature) is out the window. There's been, unfortunately, an outbreak of rabid animals about 10 minutes from my house. Bears are most likely seen when the males are moving out to find their own territory. They'll sometimes plow through suburbia to get somewhere not already occupied. **** knows why the alligators were there. Most likely pets bought in Florida let loose when they got too big.

^Hurlshot supports bullying.

I live in the suburbs and its not unusual to see raccoons, opossums, deer and wild dogs and cats (and rabid dogs and cats at that). A bit more uncommon (but not unheard of) to see coyotes and bears. And not too long ago, there were some alligators just on the other side of town.

How does Bloodborne compare to Demon Souls or Dark Souls?

I know, rite?

^Thirded.

Do you wish the game to be called: a, Dragon Age: Let's play dress up. Do you wish the protagonist to be : e, A pony. Do you wish armour and weapons to be: b, Needlessly and hideously ornate. Do you wish companions to be: f, All of the above. Do you wish the plot to be: c, Illogical and insultive to the reasoning ability of a foetus. Do you wish the primary antagonist to be: e, A reaper. Do you wish the game DLC to be: b, Never ending. Do you wish the possible failure of the game to be blamed on: e, Bitter old trolls, who just don't understand our innovations and artistic integrity. Do I win anything for entering?

Isn't Call of Duty one of those FPS where you're forced to play a male protag? I know being able to have a choice in PC gender is a big issue for people wanting better female representation in games.

Had the brothel ever added anything other than some quest pieces (that could have been placed elsewhere) and a place to waste your money? I've never seen the point, to be honest. Imshael was a Desire Demon in DAI I'd be interested in seeing how you can make an objective calculation of this percentage (personal taste is not objective) And...? Who cares about what happens on the bio boards when not on the bio boards?

So its okay to give positive press for your friends without disclosing they are your friends, provided its not a AAA game and provided its just that one time? I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here. Was a lot of the DQ/ZQ stuff sensationalized? Sure, I'll agree with that. Should ZQ been subject to online harassment? Nope. And I don't mean talking about ethical issues as harrassment, but a lot of the stuff put out there about her was personal and mean and had little to nothing to do with DQ getting press from ZQ's friends. But my whole point in removing the issue from a specific person and specific game and specific situation was to illustrate what the problem is. Its easy to drown in the back and forth about or from Zoe Quinn (or Anita Sarkesian or Brianna Wu) being treated abysmally online vs the issue of not disclosing friendships when presenting what appear to be objectively neutral articles. And the same is true for anyone on the "other side" who has been harassed. I think those of us who aren't having a knee jerk reaction can say that harassing people online (including doxxing and death threats) is bad. And that not disclosing that you're pals/significant other with a developer when writing supposedly objective news articles is bad. The problem is that people want to fight the noise (who harassed who, "SJW wanting to control games and thoughts" vs "GGers wanting to harass women and minorities") and personalities and not actually the issues. As I've said before you can be against harassment online, for anyone of any gender/sexual orientation/race/creed/etc making games and want proper disclosure of bias-making relationships. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, and until both sides realize that all that will ever happen is constantly fighting the noise and the personalities, renewed everytime another "incident" happens.

I liked it a lot. It has a real slow-burn to it, but I thought for a low budget horror it was quite effective. I thought the idea of the walking menace wouldn't really play and yet...it did for me. It added a sense of dread just seeing someone walking in the background. It and Ex Machina were great, I thought, and I was glad to see both get recognition and wider releases. For my part, I watched Evil Roy Slade:

Thing is, I don't think there is much hard news. So we've discussed what news there is amid the sub-codexian sniping.

Its a philosophy based article, so its kind of a "thought experiment".

I was interested based on the cast, but the commercials made it seem like Fantasy Castle-esque TV show with lots of sillyness so always switched the channel after Agents of SHIELD.

Probably nothing. Every single example of an artistic director getting free reign and massive budgets has ended in disaster. Limitation breeds creativity. That's not really what I'm saying; there are limitations to CGI as well. But they're a tool that can allow visualization of things that some practical effects (or even extensive location work) can't replicate. Just like title cards can't really give the same feel of spoken dialogue, or how black and white is great for stylization but less so for some representations.

From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover. Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike. Thunderstrike was different. He originally took the name Thor because Thor was inhabiting his body. When Thor was expelled no one knew otherwise so he continued using the name, but he kept it secret that he wasn't really Thor. When it was revealed he wasn't Thor, he started going by Thunderstrike. Lady Thor is obviously not Thor Odinson, and the idea that Nick Fury can whisper something in his ear that makes him not only unworthy of Mjolnir, but also of his birth name is ridiculous. He's been named Thor for well over 1000 years in-universe. Last time I remember him being unworthy of Mjolnir he murdered an innocent and became the tyrant king of Earth, and was still worthy of his own damned birth name. He still uses his regular name in the comic so...kinda confused here. To be honest,I haven't watched anything recently from the group you mention (and nothing from Robert Bresson, but I have mixed feelings about much of French New Wave so have seen only a few things from Truffaut and Goddard). That said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these directors and movies you want to discuss. Even if I haven't seen the film, it might serve as a good recommendation. Well he never got a chance to show what he could do, did he? To be honest, I wonder what older directors could have done with the marvels of modern CGI technology. Hitchc ock hated location shooting because he lost partial control of the film to nature - imagine him being able to control everything in studio and make the locations come to life through CGI trickery? What could he have given us? Or surrealist Buñuel or someone with visual flair like Cocteau being able to let loose their imaginations without being bound by practical effects? Weirdly they make a huge amount overseas, so its not just fat American kids. To be honest, though, there's always been a market for adventure fair that lodges between things aimed at kids and things aimed at adults. Serials, the Harryhausen films, Steven Spielberg's 80s output. The Marvel films seem to be filling that niche (and based on their poularity, its working for intended entertainment purposes if not art) and part of the international appeal may lie in that they don't really require a lot of translation (or cultural knowledge) which can sometimes be a barrier for some viewers (unfortunately).

Its not really about Quinn or Grayson, per se. They're just real world examples of the questions that arise when developers and journalist intersect at at personal level. What he's saying is that if you're a journalist in a relationship with a developer, that you should recuse yourself/be recused by editorial from any journalistic endeavors related to the covering of that developer. To not use real people, lets say Developer A (DA) and Journalist B (JB) are in a relationship. JB writes positive things about DA's career in games, and mentions their current work, the Awesome Game of Awesomeness (AGA) How do you know the positive press isn't influenced by the relationship? Would this developer be noted by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA runs into financial trouble because they sunk too much money in their project. JB allows DA to move in and pays for some of the bills so DA can continue working on AGA. JB writes a positive preview of AGA. How do you know the positive preview isn't influenced by the relationship? Isn't JB technically a financial investor in AGA? Does this mean JB can't be objective? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA and JB break up. DA completes AGA. JB gives a negative/positive review of AGA If Positive: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Negative: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA works on the sequel, AGA2. When it comes out, JB pans/promotes it. If Promote: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Pan: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? You see the problem begins to arise about whether you can trust the news outlet to be unbiased as much as it can, and point out what biases it has when it can't be neutral.

No problem with the thighs, but what's up with adventuring in heels?

I was halfway through my first run when POE came out so I shelved it. Probably restart with GOTY comes out (assuming I ever finish POE...)

Is this RPG only? Do action and roguelikes count? Does it not count kickstarters that only partially funded the game (like Divine Divinity)?

Correct, California is not a right to work state, so you can be compelled to join a union and pay dues for their benefits even if you don't agree with the union/union heads/direction of the union or else lose your job.

Yeah, as True Neutral mentions, the original comic origin was that Thor was Donald Blake, a surgeon who found a staff that was actually Thor's hammer enchanted. Later this was retconned into Odin creating the Donald Blake human to house Thor's spirit to teach him humility. The current Thor is actually post Ragnarok (which is cyclical in the Marvel U) where he re-incarnated or some jazz. Sorry, but past history shows - quite clearly - the superhero comic buyers aren't going to buy a new character. BTW they relaunched Thor when the new Thor happened, so old Thor wasn't shoved out of an existing comic - the old comic was cancelled. Neither were the above examples which were all new series with new leads based on older characters.

DC Comics has moved to California just to avoid being found at their old address during this crisis. They would have never allowed Marvel to create a female Thor if they were still at their 666 Fifth Avenue address. From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover. Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike. Unfortunately a reality of comic books is that new characters don't sell for Marvel and DC. The best selling "new" comic book characters are iterations of existing characters. Whether its the new Ms. Marvel, Thor, the new Blue Beetle, the new Dr. Fate, or whatever, comic companies are going to try to tie a character to the familiar - not try to build something never seen before. As I recall the author has said that this was part of his plan with the title and the relaunch wasn't his idea; its a continuation of what he'd been doing and was originally intended to be held in the existing Thor title. Marvel decided to make a big deal of it, but the story didn't change so...yeah Thor Odinson is in the book. Its a bit of a moot point since Odinson is dead (as of the last couple of Avengers titles - where he was using the hammer of THORR, and then his axe again when he proved worthy and couldn't weild the hammer of THORR) and even further moot now that the Marvel Universe is destroyed and we're due to having a a plethera of Thors around in Battleworld.

Yeah! What were they thinking with female Thor! There's never been a lady Thor. Well except if you count Thor who was forced by Odin to be a woman as punishment in Earth X. Well then lets object because the role of Thor has never been passed on. Except Beta Ray Bill. And Natasha Romonoff. And Rogue. And the What If? story where Jane Foster got the hammer and became Thor. And Thunderstrike. I haven't even mentioned Thor-GIrl and Thor's alternate universe daughter Thena have I...? Seriously, the book - other than the fight with Crusher Creel - has actually been pretty good, IMO.