FFaddict1313 posted... DLC for color changing is perfectly fine.
DLC ubergear in an online multiplayer game isn't, though it potentially might be if you can buy it with ingame currency. By the time that's okay it probably won't be "ubergear" anymore, though.
I dunno. Charging over a dollar to be able to make your robot be any color but gray is lame.
DLC ubergear in an online multiplayer game is just awful, though.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
For $10, it's actually really fun. The mechanics work well, and building up stats to earn/buy new parts for your robot is fun. It's also genuinely challenging to work your way up the ranks, though not artificially so. And the online seems like it'd really be fun.
Then the DLC happens.
240 points just to earn the right to change the color scheme on your robot. Something like 120 or 180 to buy individual special parts, which are basically borked, seemingly, and of course the only people playing online bought them all, making random matchmaking lololol. To be competitive, you have to turn a $10 game into almost a $20 game. At least. And that's only one set of parts.
Why, Yuke's. Why.
EDIT: I still get THQ and Yuke's confused. lol me.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Supremacy and Ultimatum were purely some random guys deciding they want to pick a fight with Bourne for no reason with their jacked up super soldiers again and Bourne being all tired of their **** and kicking ass until he finds them and tells them to knock that **** off. Sure it was cool but..... it was all pretty pointless. Especially since they just did it again in the third movie, exactly like the second. And they undid the ending of Identity like 10 seconds into Supremacy just so they could do exactly what I described.
I will admit the action and stuff improved in Supremacy and Ultimatum, but without the plot of Identity to hold it together, it really was just a cash in.
You either didn't actually watch them/just read summaries, didn't understand them, or are trying to troll.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
It's not an argument AGAINST research as much as saying that right now, all it leads to is "Well, this MAY be the case, but, uh, we're not sure," so for me, I stick to what is already medically established and accepted, even if it doesn't yet paint a full picture. I prefer complete facts over incomplete, that's basically what it comes down to for my stance. Even if those complete facts aren't fully up to date... I want to wait it out until the next incomplete thought becomes fact, because for all we know it could very well be wrong.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
meisnewbie posted... I still have a problem with you unironically talking as if you understand nutrition without actually having done any research though!
my scientific rage toward you is unbridled grrr
I talk of what IS known and what is most commonly understood without trying to get too involved and complicated. The fact of the matter is that most of what you or I speak of is still largely unknown. I speak bluntly of what is commonly known/accepted, you speak in hypotheticals of what we MAY discover down the road. We don't have those answers, though, so I'm more likely to just go with what we know as basic fact, because doing further research is just going to create a big question mark that, for all we know, may not even need to be there and really may be so simply explained.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
For the record, the majority of failure with gastric bypass comes from people eating even when they're not hungry out of habit, because they just want to, etc. People get gastric bypass and suddenly think they don't have to change their lifestyle. That's not how it works.
The rest, well, you're already going into hostile mode like usual, so discussion isn't worth it.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
ToukaOone posted... Well, right. That's why the first thing I said was basically "don't eat less, eat smarter." It's not having the willpower to NOT eat that works, because that is extremely difficult and probably going to fail. It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good
Except that IS eating less, in caloric terms and it downplays what "doesn't taste nearly as good" actually means to the dieter. And even then your argument is mostly irrelevant to mine: Dietary adherence is low .
In caloric terms, yeah, but that's... Kinda the whole point. Calories aren't what fill you. You can fill yourself on something healthier and that gets rid of the whole "Well, they'll be painfully starving" argument. And if you think downplaying what "doesn't taste as good" matters, well, there's your problem in the first place. That's why it's called willpower. You can make excuses all you want, but if somebody chooses not to follow a diet simply because they like the taste of a Big Mac over the taste of something healthier, that entirely has to do with willpower, not some kind of reasoning that leads to an excuse.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
See, I can at least buy 2,800-3,500, since it'd just mean you're at least commonly active and have a really good metabolism.
The majority of people can't eat that much and not gain weight, though, unless they have a high activity level. 4,000+, though, is just... lol no unless you're a bodybuilder and want to gain muscle mass.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
If you're trying to lose weight, 2500 isn't even low enough unless you're near 300 pounds or really, really tall.
You brought up calories, and from looking strictly at calories, eating over 3000 isn't good for you unless you're an athlete, and over 4000 isn't good unless you're trying to produce a lot of muscle mass. It doesn't matter what the calories are from. I think you're making a miscalculation in what you eat or something, otherwise you have freakishly good metabolism.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
A 5'8", 200 pound man, with a heavy activity level (constantly doing physical activity, at work and at home) can consume 3400 calories a day and lose one pound over a YEAR. Needless to say, losing an average of one pound a year isn't going to leave you at the same weight, and that's with HEAVY activity.
Athletes can eat 3000-3500 calories a day and not gain weight.
Obviously, we're not all athletes.
I don't know where you even get the 4000+ numbers.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
180-200 actually, don't have a scale but I have very little fat, eating is a good thing if you actually exercise! I shot a little high assuming that most men would want to be stronger but even if you are trying to lose fat, you get more energy turnover by eating a good amount and exercising a lot rather than just starving yourself
Do you realize how much you would have to exercise to be able to freely eat 3000-6000 calories a day and not gain weight. You could if you were 600 pounds, but, uh...
EDIT: And no, 2000-2500 isn't based on sedentary men, either, unless they're already near 300 pounds.
Where are you getting your info.
Because at this point I have to assume you're just picking numbers.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Liquid Wind posted... this ad campaign is pretty dumb, I'm all for over the top manliness advertising(old spice) but you have to apply it to the right product. a diet soda? a MAN should be eating 3,000-6,000 calories a day, if eating that much makes you fat it means you're living a sedentary beta life. that being said soda is still disgusting and you should be drinking more milk and juice instead, milk is probably the only beverage that should be using a manly ad campaign.
Yeah, this is just flat out not true.
Are you 600 pounds.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Well, if he really didn't know it was going to happen, then he was probably told afterwards that it was a work, because he wasn't selling it any other time something random happened... He actually seemed pissed off. This time he's putting over the storyline.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
It's easier to flesh out two characters that have an episode revolving around them than it is to flesh out a dozen in just a few episodes. And half of the problem seems to be that you expect all of them to just die off and never get development, which isn't true. At least, assuming it doesn't suddenly change gears 100% from the GN.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I said the first episode was the best one. You know, the one with like two total zombie deaths. The best scenes were when he was hiding with the family in the house.
The rest of the season got into kind of stupid stuff with a bunch of redshirts that we were supposed to care about when they died. There was more character development with the father and son in the house than there was with anyone we saw in the camp, and they were only on screen for 30 minutes of the entire season.
THAT was my problem with it, and a problem that a lot of people had with the show if you check out other boards.
Alright, fair enough on the first part. But a lot of the people from the camp aren't "redshirts," and a few of them got way more than "30 minutes the entire season." I don't think it's fair at all to hold lack of character development against them, because that's hard to do when you're trying to establish a bunch of necessary characters at once in a short first season. Several of them last a good while and develop over time.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
SlymDayspring posted... I read the GN's, so I knew what to expect, and I still thought the last episode wasn't very good. It was a huge drop in quality.
Oh, I agree that the last episode was a drop in quality. But to say the entire season got bad after the first episode... I disagree 100%.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I don't know how anyone who saw the first season could be. The show could very well have the biggest drop off from the first episode to the sixth episode. I just don't even know how they dropped the ball that much.
ps I never read the graphic novel so don't be one of 'those guys'
...What.
What were you expecting out of this? Lots of zombie gore and action?
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
DeathChicken posted... Apparently JR was not aware he was going to be fired, and it's legit. Whelp
I don't think it's legit, and if it is, he knew about it already. He seems to be playing along with it on his Twitter more than complaining/being serious. He's selling it with stuff like
@epinindy .. Look, last wk I did what was called for..and regretted it. In OKC I got canned. I'm a big boy & can handle it w/o any lectures.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
2. In order to have willpower, a dieter needs to eat.
There's a reason that "eat less food" diets are almost never successful, whereas you get these "protein plan" diets that tend to have moderate success.
Well, right. That's why the first thing I said was basically "don't eat less, eat smarter." It's not having the willpower to NOT eat that works, because that is extremely difficult and probably going to fail. It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Even if caloric restriction would cause them to lose weight, if they keep feeling constant hunger and the desire for food, do you really think they can adhere to it?
For one, caloric restriction doesn't have to mean eating less, it just means eating smarter. Second, your body adapts. The less you eat, the less it takes to get full. That's why it's stupid to fast before a big feast, because you'll actually get full more quickly. So to suggest that they'd somehow be in some constant, painful hunger is ridiculous. So yes, if they HAVE to have fast food over something healthier, then that is a problem with willpower.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Chuckles posted... Soda doesn't fill you? News to me...There is no arguing that it is a ton of calories with almost no nutritional benefit, but in my experience it is always quite filling. I used to be quite homeless, and at times my food intake consisted of a piece of sandwich bread from Jimmy John's, water from a fountain whenever I got thirsty and soda stolen from McDonald's. That all being stretched over a few days.
There were plenty of times where my only food for a day was literally a handful of bread + however much soda I drank... And I wasn't walking around constantly starving, I'd usually fill myself up pretty well. Feel like crap, yes... but still full!
Well, when you eat less, it naturally takes less to feel full. Beyond that, you might've psyched yourself out in a "This is all I'm going to get, so it better fill me" way or something. Other than the carbonation making you momentarily feel "full" if you drink it really fast, soda doesn't normally fill you.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
BoshStrikesBack posted... I see. But still: given how chock-full of sugars and calories regular soda is, how many diet drinks would you need to consume before they evened out? Three? Five? Twenty?
Probably a few, to be fair. The thing is... A can of soda isn't good for you, regardless. So even if you're only drinking enough diet to equal one can, you're still defeating the purpose, since soda's basically empty calories because it doesn't fill you, so you're probably still eating normally on top of that. If you're trying to lose weight, the point of diet soda is that one can is a good bit less than a can of regular. If you're drinking a regular can's worth, anyway...
A lot of people don't seem to realize that's possible, because they get stuck on "Look how few calories!"
Just because it may take 50 cans of diet to = the calories in one regular can doesn't mean 50 cans of diet = 1 regular. At all.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
BoshStrikesBack posted... Then what should we account for? Fat? Salt? Aspartame, for whatever reason? (I'm pleading ignorance here; someone fill me in!)
Well, as Leon said, most diet sodas don't contain zero calories. But yeah, going beyond that... Salt, sugar/sweetener/etc... That still gets broken down/stored as fat, whatever's not used in your body right away. Like, you can have a drink that says 0 calories, but then if it has 60 grams of sugar, well...
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
BoshStrikesBack posted... Obviously drinking anything of the such in excess is going to make you gain more weight than if you didn't.
I'm sorry, but going strictly by calories, five servings of zero is still zero. That newbie guy's asking a good question: what specifically is responsible for the posited weight gain of diet soda?
Well, your first problem is going strictly by calories. Calories aren't the only thing to account for at all.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
meisnewbie posted... That literally tells me nothing at all. Are you claiming that anything drunk to the same degree that diet soda is would increase their fat? Or that merely because it's a "soda" it necessarily has to make someone fatter? If so, how does it make them fatter? Insulin response? Changing the person's setpoint? Increased caloric uptake because of depleted willpower?
...You're making what he said way more complicated than it needs to be.
He's saying that somebody that may drink one can of regular soda a day may drink 5-6 cans of diet again because "It's diet and it's healthy for me." Obviously drinking anything of the such in excess is going to make you gain more weight than if you didn't. Thus, they're kinda defeating the purpose of diet soda by drinking more of it and canceling out the difference.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
WalrusJump posted... i judge people for drinking diet soda not because it's unmanly, but because it tastes like ass and is no more healthy than regular soda
It's a good bit better for those that need to count calories. It's the other crap in it that's unhealthy, but you find that in soda in general.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
Yeah, this commercial isn't really pushing the randomness like Old Spice/DQ does, as much as... Being overly macho, but in the same nature.
I don't really see anything wrong with it. These kind of commercials work. Not in a "I'm a man, I should drink this!" way, but in a "This catches my attention" way.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I agree that would have been better, as it'd have sold the walk-out more... But I'm not at all surprised they didn't do that, for ratings reasons. And while I don't think this is a GOOD Raw at all, I don't at all find it offensive like everybody else seems to.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I don't really know what the big issue is. If you somehow expected for it to literally be a show with three people, well... I don't know what to tell you. It was obvious everybody was going to come back tonight, and other than the JR thing, this has basically been... A normal RAW.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
But Doomguy was part of a team. His team's dead, yeah, but he was still part of a larger group of marines. Isn't Duke being solo, period, part of who he is.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif