| Board List | Page List: 1, 2 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Is Shadiversity right about women in war, and are nunchuks a stupid weapon? |
| darkknight109 12/14/22 6:51:05 AM #27 | DragonClaw01 posted... It is usually some crazy methed up guy running full tilt at some dude and stabbing the dude several times like a maniac until he is incapacitated.I don't think there were too many "crazy methed up guys" in medieval Ryukyu. Dealing with someone with a knife back then didn't mean they were on a different planet trying to cut out your heart and eat it; they could just as easily be after your money and threatening you, similar to how a gun would get used in a mugging today. DragonClaw01 posted... Unless you can land a death blow on the knife fighter as he approaches you are a goner and I just don't think chucks have the force necessary to do this.Take a solid crack across the face or hands with one of those swung at full force and try saying that. I'm not saying you're going to get the impact with one of those that you would with a club, but you can 100% generate enough force with them to break bones and shatter teeth. If you've only ever seen them used the way Bruce Lee or Michelangelo uses them, yeah, you're not seeing them used with anywhere near their full potential for power, since both of them like to use speedy, flashy moves that are pretty far removed from how the weapon is actually used. DragonClaw01 posted... Even if we are limited to just improvised weapons, I would rather have a bat, since the one blow I have would be devastating, probably cracking the knife wielding maniacs skull and instantly killing him, unlike chucks that are kind of wimpyI mean, if we get to pick our weapons, I'll take a sword or a spear - better reach advantage and superior killing ability. Is a bat going to beat nunchaku? Sure. But how often are you going to be carrying a bat around with you as you go about your day? Nunchaku fold up and fit nicely into the sleeves or vest of a kimono, so you could have them readily available if someone decided to make trouble for you. A tetsubo - probably the closest thing you'd have in the Middle Ages far east to a modern baseball bat - isn't particularly inconspicuous, nor is it practical to lug around with you as you run your daily errands. Saying a bat or a sword is a better weapon than the nunchaku is a bit like saying a Reaper drone is a superior weapon to a pistol - technically true, but you're also talking about weapons designed for completely different applications. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Is Shadiversity right about women in war, and are nunchuks a stupid weapon? |
| darkknight109 12/13/22 5:13:24 PM #24 | rexcrk posted... Anyone saying that nunchucks are useless has obviously never watched Ninja Turtles.To be fair, Ninja Turtles shows the exact wrong way to use pretty much all of their weapons (at least they did in the 80s; haven't watched any of the newer ones, so cannot comment). Why they didn't go for a more realistic depiction in a kids show about anthropomorphic reptiles is beyond my comprehension. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Does it snow where you live? |
| darkknight109 12/10/22 5:19:15 PM #23 | We're one of the few places in Canada that doesn't get snow on the regular. We might get a week or two's worth of snow spread out throughout the winter, but it usually melts after a day or two. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Cereal |
| darkknight109 12/10/22 4:36:42 AM #14 | Weirdly, if I'm working in the office (rare these days - been working from home for the last 8 years) I *have* to have breakfast or I am absolutely famished by lunch time, and it's usually cereal. However, when working at home I usually skip breakfast altogether and have just a light lunch. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Is Shadiversity right about women in war, and are nunchuks a stupid weapon? |
| darkknight109 12/10/22 4:12:42 AM #19 | ParanoidObsessive posted... To be fair, they sort of fall into that weird category where they were originally invented to be something you could use as a weapon but also pass off as a non-weapon. Like how the tonfa were originally threshing tools, but were basically turned into batons you can use to beat the shit out of someone.@ParanoidObsessive Nunchaku were not "invented" as a weapon at all. Again, they're a horse's bridle - we have historical examples and pictures of this. People started using them as weapons at some point - we're not exactly sure when, but it predates the Satsuma clan's takeover of the territory and the imposition of Japanese weapons laws. Most likely it came from farmers having them on hand when they were out drinking and using them to defend themselves if a mugger or other bar patron came at them in a fight. Tonfa also weren't threshing tools; they were generally made from handles originally, either for a gristmill or a well. They would be terrible for threshing, because they're too short for the job (compare to flails, which actually *were* threshing tools). Also, traditional Japanese rice harvesting techniques actually didn't use "striking" as a threshing method; that wouldn't show up until the 19th century. They used a device called a kokibashi to separate out grains from the straw. Finally, there was never any law in Okinawa that barred peasants from owning weapons but permitted nobles to bear them. That is based off of laws from the Japanese mainland (which were never rigorously enforced anyways) controlling the ownership of "longswords" and a Ryukyu law that briefly banned peasants from owning firearms in the 1600s, but that never actually affected the melee weapons most people talk about when they're referring to a weapons ban. Japan did have laws in all its territories (including Okinawa, following its establishment as a Japanese protectorate after the Satsuma Clan's invasion at the end of the Sengoku Jidai) controlling weapons ownership, but again they're not nearly as strict as the urban legends say. The idea that the Satsuma Clan banned the Okinawans from bearing traditional weapons like swords and spears and therefore they came up with stealthy workarounds is largely fiction with zero historical evidence behind it. Most of the weapon arts of Okinawa were developed by Pechin (who were nobles), rather than commoners, either for law enforcement, dueling, or training. Also worth noting - Japan (and the Ryukyu Kingdom, for that matter) had guns at this point. The idea of banning melee weapons and the Okinawans deciding they needed a workaround was kind of silly when the weapon du jour was the tanegashima matchlock rifle. The Japanese, along with the Ryukyu nobility, had little to fear from peasantry with swords (those who could afford them, that is - steel wasn't exactly cheap in Japan, and nor were the services of a weaponsmith) when they could just shoot them. Lokarin posted... Treatises on nunchucks are simply due to the ninja life style, it's a farming implement and they had treatises for every single thing they used no matter how mundane... doesn't mean it's a good weapon, just means they knew how to use it if they had to.The nunchaku were not a ninja weapon. They came from Okinawa, which had nothing to do with the ninja, and there is no evidence the ninja ever used them (though modern ninjitsu schools - the overwhelming majority of which are more Hollywood than history - have adopted it). Rotpar posted... Never understood the nunchuck. Even when I was younger with a limited understanding of physics, it always seemed obvious that it would bounce off whoever got hit and back to you.It will if you use it badly. If you pull it through target, it works fine. There are contact targets (makiwara) you can use for practice in order to make sure you're actually doing things correctly and one of the signs of a novice nunchaku user is exactly what you've observed - they strike *at* target, rather than *through* target and you will 100% get the nunchaku bouncing back at you if you do that. That's not actually that unique, though. Beginners at empty hand arts do the same thing. If you watch someone kick a bag for the first time, they often bounce off of it because they don't realize that you don't just aim at the surface of the bag, you have to aim through it like you're kicking the person holding it or else you'll suffer the effects of Sensei Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Is Shadiversity right about women in war, and are nunchuks a stupid weapon? |
| darkknight109 12/10/22 3:50:14 AM #18 | Shadiversity's video on nunchaku (not nunchucks) annoys me, because he is going about it as someone who clearly has no idea how the weapon is actually used. I don't claim to be a zealous follower of his videos, but he strikes me as a theorycrafter who relies more on his own personal interpretations than an in-depth understanding of history; I've seen about as many inaccurate claims out of him as accurate ones (and not just on this subject). For my own background, I've trained in martial arts for just over 30 years now, about 20 of them with Okinawan weapons like the nunchaku. I run my own dojo and I'm president of a North American martial arts federation. First of all, he compares the nunchaku to a flail, which is all kinds of bizarre. Yeah, they look similar, but they are very different weapons. Flails were improvised weapons of war, largely used by peasantry that were levied when manpower was short. Contrary to what fantasy stories may have taught you, there's basically no credible evidence that they were ever used by knights or professional soldiers. They were a grain threshing tool that could be used to bludgeon someone, so farmers brought them if they didn't have anything better, but a good polearm or sword would serve you much better if you could afford it. Nunchaku, by contrast, were never used for warfare - that was not their intended nor actual application. The original nunchaku was a horse's bridle (as seen here: https://www.kobudo.ch/Kobudo/Waffen/Nunchaku_files/page32_3.jpg) and it was, similar to the flail, an improvised weapon, but one intended mostly for civilian self-defence or possibly law enforcement. Your attacker was assumed to be a mugger and, therefore, if he was armed at all it would probably be with a knife. In that particular role, nunchaku work fine - they have a range advantage over the knife, and their large arcs make approaching for a stab or slash difficult. Moreover - and this is the part of the nunchaku most people don't understand, because they're used to Bruce Lee or Michelangelo from the Ninja Turtles swinging them like flails - the nunchaku actually has a lot of uses as a grappling tool. They were basically a primitive form of handcuffs. Honestly, we don't have great information on a lot of the historical applications of nunchaku, as the Ryukyu Kingdom (present day Okinawa prefecture) didn't have great written records for much of its history and relied on oral records. Furthermore, a lot of that knowledge and history was lost when the prefecture was invaded and decimated in the Battle of Okinawa at the end of WW2 (the Americans dropped five artillery rounds on the island for every Okinawan living there at the time, and over a quarter of the population died, if you want an idea of the scale of the destruction). However, what we do know does not line up at all with what Shadiversity thinks he knows about the weapon. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/20/22 9:13:57 AM #146 | LinkPizza posted... What I am saying is these games are different games.They're not, though; they're literally three different parts of the same game. Same engine, same mechanics, same characters, same overarching storyline, same dev cycle, same soundtrack, same graphics... I mean shit, they're even *marketed* under the same "Fates" name. Case in point, Birthright and Conquest don't even have proper endings; the story is left unresolved at the end of those chapters, with prominent mysteries left unsolved and the main villain left unrevealed, because those are in a different part of the game (that you conveniently have to pay another $20 for). LinkPizza posted... Different companies can do whatever they want.When did I say otherwise? Nintendo, Namco, and everyone else who uses nakedly moneygrubbing policies are absolutely free to be greedy, no disagreements there. They're completely within their legal right to use slimy business practices to increase profits. But this topic is about what annoys people, not what companies aren't allowed to do, and companies being miserly penny-pinchers trying to milk more profit out of consumers is something that annoys me. LinkPizza posted... The playtime will change person to person.Then why did you bring it up? Playtime was your argument, chief, not mine. You're the one who put forward that "30 hours" figure as though it was gospel, which you now are backpedalling on. I already said earlier in the topic that I think playtime is a really stupid metric to measure these things by, because of how wildly it varies from product to product (and from player to player). LinkPizza posted... The price doesnt really matter as long as its worth that much to the person who bought it.Man, EA would love this marketing angle. "Why are you guys complaining? If people are throwing thousands of dollars into our lootboxes, they clearly think it's worth it, so there's no issue, right?" --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/20/22 12:56:15 AM #141 | LinkPizza posted... Except they did do enough work to earn it. The first 6 chapters are the same. After that, the games vary a good amount. The battles are different. And they are different difficulty levels, as well. Conquest is purposely made to be harder. Its harder than both birthright and revelations, apparently Whether you believe it or not, they are different games that have a similar beginning. But the other parts of the story are different To say someone didnt earn the money when they put in the work is asinine And insulting Ans the developers did a lot more than switching the playable characters. The battles are literally different. And harder in one of the game. They are all different difficulties. Which meant making each battle other than the first few battles individuallyThis is like saying that Starcraft is actually three different games because in each campaign you play as a different army, with a different storyline, and the battles are different. Except, whoops, actually Starcraft was sold as a single game! Which makes sense, given that it was all developed as a single development cycle and each campaign uses the same assets as the others. Y'know, just like Fire Emblem Fates. LinkPizza posted... And each game campaign is about 30 hours (according to the internet).Having played the game myself, 30 hours would be generous for Birthright and Revelation. Conquest, maybe, if only because of the difficulty. But even if you use that playtime as your benchmark, that gives you a total of 90 hours. Grand. Meanwhile, contemporary games like Skyrim had several times that length in gameplay while retailing for roughly half the price. LinkPizza posted... As for fighting games, many people do end up buying the new fighters they add.And where did I ever suggest they didn't? People spend money on overpriced stuff all the time. My allegation wasn't that people weren't buying it, it's that it's a ripoff because you wind up having to pay $60 for the base game, then $100 for the remainder of the content that was carved out of the initial product so they could sell it back to you at a ridiculous markup. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | yuji naka got busted for insider trading |
| darkknight109 11/18/22 4:34:08 PM #16 | Nade_Duck posted... saltiest peanut everHe's not even good enough to be my fake. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/18/22 12:26:15 AM #137 | agesboy posted... that's stupidly oversimplifying things and also probably from a technical aspect incorrect, unless you can point me towards one variable that makesThe character you're referencing isn't playable in *any* version of the game, and therefore isn't what I'm talking about. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if you could switch him playable with relative ease; making boss characters playable is a not particularly uncommon hack on older Fire Emblem games, so it seems feasible you could do it here too (though it would probably be glitchy as hell outside of combat). LinkPizza posted... So, I dont really see why they wouldnt ask for more money.Why would they? They didn't do any work to earn it. Again, the characters are all there in the code for all three games. The fact that switching them on changes the game doesn't mean that the developers did any extra work outside of the planned development cycle that I, as the end user, should have to pay for. If "having this playable changes the game and the user should therefore pay extra" was sound logic, players should have to purchase every single playable character in a fighting game separately, which would be both tremendously greedy on the part of the developers and also really stupid. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/17/22 2:27:54 PM #134 | LinkPizza posted... I meant playable Wither way, that doesnt change what I said, thoughI understand that, but whether or not they're playable doesn't really factor into the question of that warranting extra payment on behalf of the end-user. Whether or not the unit is playable in a specific version of Fates is a single variable in the code that could be switched on or off at a whim. It's not like the playable characters from Birthright are completely absent from Conquest or vice versa; the data is all there, because all of the characters were designed together and used - as allies, enemies, or both - in all three versions of the game. Since that data is already in the files, it doesn't seem to be a great justification for asking for more money. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Food delivery service you use most often |
| darkknight109 11/17/22 4:08:40 AM #11 | Food delivery apps are both expensive and terrible for the environment, so none. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Nintendo to Ban Fixing 'Toxic' Customer's Game Systems... |
| darkknight109 11/17/22 1:52:01 AM #13 | Revelation34 posted... If this was true then the Switch would be able to play any game without issues.No, it wouldn't. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/16/22 1:31:53 PM #130 | LinkPizza posted... While many of the characters are the same, there are certain characters that are only playable depending on which game(s) you got. Some are not available (to play) in the other Some character are for all the routes, but many are for 2 different routes (one usually being revaluations), and a few for only 1 route for each character And even when they are in multiple games, depending on when you get them can change how the game is playedEvery single character is available in all iterations of the game; the only difference is whether they are playable or not. Their art assets, their voice clips, so on and so forth - all the things that actually took up development resources and require space in the game files are present in all three games. Any character that isn't playable in a specific version in the game shows up in the single player campaign as an enemy (excepting the child characters) and can pop up in online matches. In other words, it's all part of the same development effort. adjl posted... And they're all long enough to function just fine as standalone games.Except "long enough" is a pretty nebulous distinction. How long is "long enough to function just fine as a standalone game"? I've seen big-budget games that take 4 hours to complete - by that metric, Fire Emblem Fates is enough for at least 10-20 games, though few people would consider releasing it as such to be anything but a wholesale ripoff. I've also seen big-budget games that take hundreds of hours to complete; by that metric, Fire Emblem Fates isn't even half a game, but for whatever complaints I have about how it was released, "not long enough" isn't one of them. That's why measuring the game by "length" doesn't strike me as a helpful analysis. At the end of the day, Fire Emblem Fates had a single development cycle, and the end product was - if you look past how it was marketed - a single game with a single engine, set of characters, soundtrack, combat system, etc., with three campaigns. It was entirely a marketing decision to release it in multiple parts to try and get more money out of the end user. adjl posted... Depends entirely how well the base game ends. If the base game is satisfying without buying the DLC, then the DLC is optional content. [...]Without getting into details and spoiling things, I wouldn't characterize the ending of Birthright or Conquest as "satisfactory". Story threads and highlighted mysteries are left unresolved, and the overarching force that caused the game's principle conflict is only obliquely alluded to, with some of the characters seemingly drawing attention to it by saying things along the lines of, "I wonder what caused ______ to happen. Guess we may never know." In order to truly understand what happened in the story, including the actual identity of the game's villain, you need to play Revelation. Not coincidentally, that's also the only campaign that can't be purchased as a standalone title. adjl posted... I don't have an issue with selling an epilogue separately from a story that doesn't actually need an epilogueRevelation is most decidedly *not* an epilogue. Again, it's the actual story that provides the context and resolution for Birthright and Conquest. There are things that are only brought up and described in Revelation that have absolutely no business being relegated to "extra content." adjl posted... You're absolutely right that the market is rife with claims of "it's optional!" when the companies have done everything they can to make it as close to mandatory as possible, but that's not what's happening here.Isn't it? Again, you're locking away the actual ending of the game and some fairly important parts of the story behind a paywall (after your customers have already paid full price for your game - Fire Emblem isn't exactly a freemium title). That doesn't strike me as a trivial omission. adjl posted... A purchase being attractive on its own merits (as opposed to being relatively attractive because the alternative has been made deliberately terrible) doesn't mean it's not an optional purchase.Setting aside the specific example of Fates, the flipside of this argument is that just because something is an "optional" purchase doesn't mean it isn't moneygrubbing to charge for it, particularly if little-to-no development effort is involved in the purchase. "You don't have to buy it!" is not, on its own, a valid defence against exploitative or greedy DLC. As an example, an increasingly common type of DLC in RPGs is various forms of item packs/in-game gold/experience boosters (the Tales series is particularly notorious for this, but they're far from the only games I've seen it in - Trails does it as well, off the top of my head). In those cases, as long as the game isn't designed to be a grindy slog if such items aren't used, the statement "it's optional!" is entirely valid. However, what exactly am I being asked to pay money for? The items in those item packs are already coded into the base game; there's no actual new content or assets in the DLC pack. If I buy those packs, I'm not paying for any development effort on the developer's part; it's, in essence, the developer saying, "Thanks for your $60! And if you're willing to pay me another $15, I'll flip this switch and make the game easier!". If the intent is to provide an option for "easy mode" for players who prefer story to combat, why are they charging extra for it when it involves no additional effort on their part? A similar issue can be found in fighting games with customizable characters, where the developers will release additional customization options/skins for money (Soul Calibur with Create-A-Soul, Smash Bros. with the Mii Fighters, etc.). Now at least in this case there is some additional development time getting put in, so there's actually some work that I'm being asked to pay for, fair enough. The problem is, the development time that goes into a skin is fairly minimal and the costs... typically are not. Again, as an example, Soul Calibur charges half the full price of the game for all of the character creation packs (and that's not including the extra character DLC packs, which add up to another ~$40). The price being charged is wildly out of scale with what's being offered, which is particularly galling because, optional and cosmetic though it may be, Create-a-Soul has become a huge draw for the series in general (and on the non-customization additions, I'll just say that having a fighting game where a significant chunk of the roster is locked behind a sizable paywall always annoys the hell out of me; yes, they aren't explicitly necessary to have an enjoyable game, but that doesn't mean it isn't dirty pool to make customers pay close to $150 to have the game's complete roster). This is why I get annoyed when I see, "It's not mandatory" or "It's just cosmetics", as though that justifies naked profiteering. Blatant greed is not something that should be celebrated or normalized. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Nintendo to Ban Fixing 'Toxic' Customer's Game Systems... |
| darkknight109 11/16/22 12:25:15 PM #5 | Seems perfectly reasonable to me. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/15/22 12:17:50 AM #124 | adjl posted... $100 for three games isn't bad. Again, that's not in any way a required cost, it's just what you have to pay if you want to play all of them. The two games can function just fine as standalone purchases if you only want to buy one.It's not three games, though - it's one game with three campaigns. The characters, the art assets, the engine, the combat, the enemies, the music and sound, the mechanics, every bit of it is identical across the three "games". The only things that differ are the maps, the story, and the overall difficulty. Calling Fire Emblem Fates three different games is sort of like calling Pokemon Blue, Red, and Yellow three different games - true in the sense of how they were released, but the differences between them are minimal (and at least with Pokemon you don't need to own all of the releases in a generation to enjoy all of that generation's content, given that trading exists). Also, saying that the true ending of the game is "optional content" strikes me as missing the mark. Sure, it's not a "required cost"; no DLC or microtransactions ever are. That doesn't mean it isn't patently exploitative money-grubbing. This argument is the same one EA makes in defence of lootboxes: "You don't have to spend a penny on them and can just unlock characters through gameplay!" (unspoken subtext: "...as long as you don't mind spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours to do so"). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/14/22 3:48:25 AM #117 | Krazy_Kirby posted... And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me. darkknight109 posted... And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me. darkknight109 posted... I also was not aware that money-whoring for cosmetics apparently doesn't count as money-whoring. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming really has not advanced much in the past 10+ years |
| darkknight109 11/14/22 3:40:08 AM #16 | We've kind of reached the point where games aren't really limited by tech anymore and are more limited by how much money you're willing to throw into the development cycle. Gone are the days where a developer has to rely on some fancy tricks to fully push the hardware to its limits. Generally speaking, in the modern era, most companies are far more constrained by their budget than their platform. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/14/22 3:33:34 AM #114 | Krazy_Kirby posted... ps4-ps4 proIf you can't find the time/budget to test on a whopping *two* different system setups, I'm not sure what to tell you. Krazy_Kirby posted... (and pay to win lootboxes were taken out of battlefront at launch.. cosmetic lootboxes don't mean anything)Strange that you bring this up when Battlefront wasn't one of my examples. I also was not aware that money-whoring for cosmetics apparently doesn't count as money-whoring. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/14/22 3:27:30 AM #112 | hypnox posted... The main problem with PC games are nowadays theres so many damn variables when it comes to components and drivers its almost impossible for them to test for them all. And sometimes crap like that make a difference.I'm more sympathetic to PC games pulling this, for the reasons you mentioned, but when the game doesn't work well on *anyone's* system because the game itself is still horribly bugged and not in a state where it is ready for mass release (like Cyberpunk 2077, for instance), that's where I get cranky. And there's zero excuse for it for console games, where everyone is on a standardized system. dud posted... People have been saying this for like ten years and it's still a flat out lie ten years later.I beg to differ. I can't honestly recall the last AAA game I played that didn't have some form of naked profit-mongering going on with blatantly exploitative or money-grubbing transactions. Even Nintendo, who used to be categorically opposed to this sort of thing, have jumped in feet-first in the Switch era. Just a few examples off the top of my head: -Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - "Here's the base game for $60, with a roster of 74 fighters and 103 stages. And if you want the complete game, you can buy the DLC, to the tune of $66 ($55 if you use the package deals!), which gets you... 11 new characters and 11 additional stages." -Tales of Arise - "Try our wonderfully-crafted RPG adventure, for just $60! Then head on over to the DLC page, where you can buy a bunch of costume art assets that we threw together in an afternoon, or item packs that took literally 30 minutes to code! Total price tag for all the DLC options, precisely zero of which add any meaningful content to the game? $175!!". By the way, $130 worth of those DLC packs were available on Day 1, meaning there's zero reason beyond profiteering that they couldn't have been included in the main game. -Fire Emblem Fates - Probably the most egregious example I can think of, the game had two campaigns ("Birthright" and "Conquest") which, despite using the exact same set of characters and mechanics and being developed as a single project, were released separately as two full priced games (though you could get the "second campaign" at a discount as DLC for whichever first campaign you paid for). The real kicker, however, was that the game's third campaign, which included the game's true ending, was DLC exclusive (unless you shelled out for the Collector's Edition), meaning the total cost for the complete game came out to $100 (and that's including the discount for the second campaign). And as a side note, there's another $40 of DLC packs in addition to that ($25 if you buy them in packs) that consist of the usual fare of standalone maps, EXP/gold boosters, etc. And the above aren't even counting the more infamous examples, like EA and their rampant abuse of lootboxes in everything from sports titles to Star Wars. It all gets to be a bit much for me. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Gaming pet peeves? |
| darkknight109 11/09/22 4:42:34 AM #58 | Ooh, do I have a list. -Games that require Day 1 patches. For that matter, games that release horribly broken with the intent of patching them later, because the developers are basically offloading their testing and Q&A process to their own fucking customers. -Games where you have scripted losses against enemies that you can easily mop the floor with. I don't mind losing a battle if the story needs it to happen, but at least do me the courtesy of *actually* making me lose to a decent opponent, rather than having the equivalent of Mario surrounded by three Goombas declaring the situation to be hopeless. I absolutely love the Kiseki/Trails series, but man do those games absolutely love them this trope. -Games with forced multiplayer achievements, particularly when multiplayer isn't even the main focus of the game. I'm a completionist and also a bit of a recluse, so I almost never play games online and it always annoys the hell out of me when I'm missing ~20% of the achievements because they require you to do random shit online. -Everything to do with microtransactions, loot boxes, paid DLC, season passes, and basically all the money-grubbing dirty tactics that has turned gaming into absolute shit in the last 5-10 years. I honestly can't remember the last time I played a new, triple-A title, because of all the bullshit that modern gaming tosses in fistfulls at you that prevent you from actually enjoying the game. It has to have been almost a decade now - last one honestly might have been Skyrim. Since then, I'm basically exclusively into retro gaming and indie titles, because at least those games usually don't have their heads planted firmly in their own asses. -In a game with no autosaves and/or where saving is limited to specific spots, do not present me with two identical paths, one of which leads to collectables and/or extra stuff, the other of which leads to story progression after which it is impossible to backtrack to re-explore the first path. Whichever psychopath thought this up needs to be in an institution. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | 22nd topic of the memes |
| darkknight109 11/02/22 2:09:08 PM #259 | Far-Queue posted... This true adjl?I'm Canadian, lived here all my life, and I've never once seen peanut butter sold like that. Maybe some specialty store sells it like that or something, but for 99.999% of us we get it in jars the same as everyone else. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Will Trump ever be charged? |
| darkknight109 10/26/22 4:04:40 PM #33 | Count_Drachma posted... Obama, for instance, had the charisma of JFK and integrity of NixonOdd, then, how literally zero members of his administration were ever indicted for criminal activity, which is a modern-day benchmark. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/0/0/AABDhhAAD0dU.jpg Looks pretty squeaky-clean to me. (Extra lulz: that chart was published before the halfway point of Trump's admin and he had already outstripped every single admin since Nixon in the number of indictments in his executive by that point). Count_Drachma posted... The problem is Trump hasn't done much of anything.Shook down a foreign country by illegally withholding congressionally-appointed military aid (something that looks particularly bad given current events in Ukraine) is "nothing"? Refusing to concede an election loss, fermenting insurrection, and refusing to participate in the peaceful transition of power between administrations is "nothing"? Stealing and improperly storing classified documents, then refusing to return them and trying to hide them from investigators is "nothing"? And that's without getting into the dozens (hundreds?) of "lesser" crimes Trump and his admin committed, from Logan Act violations to financial crimes to sexual crimes to violations of the Presidential Records Act to good old-fashioned graft. Trump was the most crooked president in the country's history and it's not even particularly close. hungrymike posted... You mean for withholding aid money from Ukraine until they fire the prosecuter investigating the energy company his son worked for?I'd say you got Trump confused with Biden, but that doesn't make sense either considering... -Biden wasn't withholding aid money from Ukraine; the US was withholding loan guarantees and Biden was merely the point man the US embassy requested (they were the ones who initially came up with the plan). -The allegations against Burisma had nothing to do with Hunter Biden and had to do with activities that occurred before he even joined the company. -The prosecutor Biden requested be fired, Viktor Shokin, had allowed the investigation into Burisma to go dormant and was not actively pursuing it. He was also legendarily corrupt, with several prosecutors leaving his office over allegations of shady dealings and others being caught with bribes in their possession. If you're trying to save your son and/or his company from legal peril, pushing out a corrupt prosecutor who isn't looking into the alleged crimes is probably not a winning move. -Biden and the US were not alone in demanding Shokin's termination; the EU and Ukraine's own citizenry were similarly demanding he be given the boot, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have sons working for Burisma at the time. -The new prosecutor who replaced Shokin immediately re-opened the investigation into Burisma, with the US's blessing. The replacement found insufficient evidence for charges. Lest you think this is evidence of more corruption, an independent probe by the EU, who were concerned that Shokin was letting the investigation go stale, came to the same conclusions. In other words, you're full of shit. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Will Trump ever be charged? |
| darkknight109 10/26/22 3:47:26 PM #32 | Charged? Likely. The Mar-a-Lago raid was the crossing of the Rubicon. You do not want to become the first Attorney General in history to request a raid on a former president's home, nor the first judge to sign off on it, unless you have a *damn* good reason to do so. Garland would not have gone down this road if he didn't expect charges to come out of it. That's without touching on his various financial misdeeds that the New York AG's office is looking into right now. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | Truss resigns |
| darkknight109 10/20/22 12:06:30 PM #14 | You know, for how much Brexit was supposed to bring this new golden age for the UK, their prime ministers just don't seem to be able to ride that wave of wealth and prosperity they kept saying was right around the corner. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | What are your Top 5 bands of all time? |
| darkknight109 10/20/22 12:03:54 PM #39 | I just have one favourite, that being Rammstein. Beyond that, I listen to a huge variety of music and bands and none of them immediately rise to the top as being particularly favoured. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | 22nd topic of the memes |
| darkknight109 10/19/22 10:18:42 PM #113 | captpackrat posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/7/2/AAQwHjAADyyo.jpgSo, I run a haunted house every year and immediately upon seeing this image, I actually googled how much those mannequins cost, because I could make such a bitching Halloween display with those things. Turns out they're over $1000 a pop. That fuckin' sucks, because they seriously just tickle the "uncanny valley" bone like no tomorrow. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | So... Alberta's new premier is a moron. |
| darkknight109 10/12/22 7:04:24 AM #2 | Well, I mean, the province has had less than 10 years out of the last 40 where it wasn't led by a moron, so they're consistent at least. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Topic | video games that have made you cry |
| darkknight109 10/08/22 6:38:54 AM #42 | To the Moon and Spiritfarer were the two that got me the closest. Both of those games are absolutely beautiful stories and well worth a playthrough. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! |
| Board List | Page List: 1, 2 |