Lurker > darkknight109

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

He also said that he doesn't need to prepare much because the important thing is "attitude" and "a willingness to get things done."

Really setting himself up for success here...

Do you really need more than that to find peace?

Um... yes. Yes you do. Quite a lot more actually.

Or do you really think that Trump is the first person from either party to come up with the idea of "Maybe we should convince North Korea to give up their nukes and make peace with them"?
---

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!

adjl posted...

And that's without even getting into the effects this has on the ability of legitimate indie developers to make profitable games. Indie developers are already finding that their games are selling better in other stores than on Steam, simply because there's some degree of vetting going into those catalogues so every quality new game doesn't release alongside a hundred asset flips, brainless memes, and sub-functional products that barely qualify as "games." That's not a sustainable marketplace. Steam was once the prime market for indie games, but abandoning all pretense of quality control is going to kill that. Nobody's going to shop on Steam anymore.

Worth noting that this was the exact situation that led up to the Video Game Crash of '83. Tons of developers flooded the market with poorly made trash that didn't sell; retailers marked it down to bargain-bin prices to try and move what product they could; legitimate developers couldn't get their products seen as they were competing against underpriced trash; consumers quickly lost faith and interest in the system and left.

The system isn't wholly analogous, but the historical precedent for this sort of thing isn't a good one.
---

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!

He also said that he doesn't need to prepare much because the important thing is "attitude" and "a willingness to get things done."

Really setting himself up for success here...
---

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!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

And yet they decided to "open the flood gates".

Sure, but the point is that's their decision to make. They are in no way obligated to allow everything and if they had chosen to implement minimum quality standards and guidelines - as they used to do - they would have been completely within their rights to do so.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Guess everyone wins..well everyone except the game journalists. :)

And people who prefer quality games over dross, but who cares about them, right?

Steam has been flooded with horrible, low-quality games for years now and this decision seems to affirm that they've completely given up any pretense of quality control on their product.
---

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!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Zangulus posted...

What do you even think the first amendment is? Because by the sounds of it, you have no clue what it actually is.

Why don't you tell me smart guy?

Oh, fine, I'll bite.

First Amendment covers freedom of speech. To make a long story short it means that the government cannot fine, charge, imprison, or otherwise punish you for expressions of opinion (subject to several restrictions regarding safety). It also means that the government cannot compel you to make statements you do not believe in.

Notably, these restrictions apply to the government and absolutely no one else. A private employer, for instance, can punish you for making speech that it disagrees with or finds embarrassing. Using a service - like, say, an online forum like this one - may require you to agree to terms limiting what speech you can make while using that service (which is why offensive or hateful speech will get you banned on this website).

As Valve is a private corporation, they are protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, cannot be compelled to host, support, or promote games that do not align with their corporate views. Valve, as a private entity, is free to remove games from their service at any time, for any reason. Your right to free speech does not include a right to use Valve (or Youtube or Facebook or Twitter or GameFAQs) as a host for airing those views.
---

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!

PyroBlade1985 posted...

This isnt a free speech issue, because Valve isnt a government entity.

Why do people keep using that bullshit excuse?

Because it's true.

Valve is a private corporation. They have no legal or moral obligation to publish anything they do not want to publish, for any reason.
---

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!

Because who really needs quality control anyways?
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

Sounds like your parents at least have a nice place. Congrats bud

They do, actually. Not sure how you gathered that from the description of my house, but I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
---

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!

A hockey blog (downgoesbrown.com).
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Your narcissism must know no bounds. No surprise for a guy who writes an 800 word essay about samantha bee saying the c word though

darkknight109 posted...

I know you have trouble with reading anything longer than a tweet, but you really shouldn't project your jealousy on other people.

Yes I'm very jealous of the basement dweller typing out essays about Ivanka trump being called the c word. You caught me!

At least you're willing to admit it. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step to getting better.

(I also get a quiet giggle out of the "basement dweller" quip given that my house is low-lying seaside, so if I had a basement (or even a ground-level floor) it would be flooded on a regular basis).
---

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!

This topic is depressing.
---

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!

Duck-I-Says posted...

joemodda posted...

Is this tidbit from the EU? I thought that stuff was no longer canon

No, in Ep 3. Palpatine tells Anakin in an admittedly subtle way that he and Plagueis raped the force to create him.

This actually was never a thing.

IIRC, Lucas had originally planned for it to be that way but ultimately decided he didn't like the idea and nixed it. In the old EU, Anakin was actually a reaction of the Force to Plaguies and Palpatine's experiments, rather than a result of them.
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

Your narcissism must know no bounds. No surprise for a guy who writes an 800 word essay about samantha bee saying the c word though

darkknight109 posted...

I know you have trouble with reading anything longer than a tweet, but you really shouldn't project your jealousy on other people.

---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

Haha because of one mention of your intelligence?

Bad memory on top of short attention span? That's rough, man.
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

Haha you've resorted to low tier trolling now. You aren't the genius you think you are. I've seen you put real research into the posts that you make for dumb clickbait. I just enjoy watching you work at this stuff tbh. Keep trying really hard to impress us all bro

You have a weird obsession with my intelligence, given that you post this seemingly every time you try to argue with me. I guess you're feeling intimidated? If so:
darkknight109 posted...

I know you have trouble with reading anything longer than a tweet, but you really shouldn't project your jealousy on other people.

---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

You can almost be assured that if someone thinks that ~500 words constitutes a "dissertation" that couldn't be banged out in 10 minutes by anyone with half a brain, they're probably not in any position to comment on matters of employment.

The funniest part is that I knew this would be your response. You are that predictable on top of taking probably 20 to 30 minutes to type out your dissertations

I know you have trouble with reading anything longer than a tweet, but you really shouldn't project your jealousy on other people.
---

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!

Zeus posted...

And if you somehow think that the venue doesn't matter, you're delusional.

Really. Please explain how a TV show, seen by millions of supporters, is somehow materially different than a Twitter rant, also seen by millions of supporters.

The message is the offensive part, not the medium in which it's carried. If the positions had been reversed and Barr had made her remarks on Roseanne in front of a cheering audience while Bee tweeted hers, it would change nothing about how offensive those respective statements were.

Zeus posted...

It's a complete editorial failing much closer to the Rolling Stone's fake-rape debacle some years ago

Man, you love your false equivalencies, don't you?

Calling someone a bad word is now apparently on the same level as a fake rape accusation, according to Zeus. I guess this does explain why you think the Bee and Barr controversies are comparable, though...

Zeus posted...

o rly? Point to ONE tv show where the host called Pelosi a c***. I'll wait.

To pick on probably the most famous one, in 2014 Gary Oldman had an interview in Playboy where he called Pelosi a "fucking useless c***". Then in several follow-up interviews with other news outlets he repeated that characterization.

Zeus posted...

lolwut? They're both agenda-driven attacks.

Sure, except Samantha actually had a point to hers.

Strip out the vulgarity of both sets of comments and what are you left with? With Bee's, you're left with a commentary on Ivanka Trump and the Trump immigration. Hell, all you need to do is to take the last three words off the most infamous part of her rant and you get "You know, Ivanka, thats a beautiful photo of you and your child, but let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dads immigration practices." That's a valid argument to make.

But with Barr's if you take away the vulgarity you have... nothing. Because she wasn't making a point or providing commentary, or supporting an argument; she was just spouting off racist diatribe for no apparent reason other than to hurt, insult, and anger.

Having an agenda is not inherently bad, nor is using it to drive an attack. No one is complaining because Bee attacked a conservative or because Barr attacked a liberal; they're complaining because Bee used a very vulgar insult and because Barr used racism (reminder: racism is worse than vulgarity). The targets of their diatribes wasn't the issue; the content of said diatribes was.

Zeus posted...

The fact that you're asking why he didn't demand an apology or get involved in somebody else's business is just a whataboutism.

What are you talking about? He *DID* get involved in someone else's business! He was the one who inserted himself into the unfolding Barr scandal. Not to condemn Barr's racism, of course, but to tacitly come to her defence by saying "the person she insulted got an apology, so why didn't I?" Which a) is incredibly tone-deaf for someone with a pretty shoddy history of dealing with racism in the context of his presidency and b) is making the exact same "calling someone names is just as bad as racism" mistake that you're making above.
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

You can almost be assured someone doesn't have a job when they repeatedly write dissertations on political clickbait articles

You can almost be assured that if someone thinks that ~500 words constitutes a "dissertation" that couldn't be banged out in 10 minutes by anyone with half a brain, they're probably not in any position to comment on matters of employment.

Zeus posted...

And her "position" has, for the most part, seemed little different from any other family member giving a politician relative advice.

Except for the part where she's gone on trips in her capacity as a government adviser and been recognized by such, both by foreign dignitaries and by the White House itself. You can argue whether or not she actually does anything to merit that treatment, but the White House is pretending that she does, so that's what we have to run with.

If you don't want to be treated like an official government employee, don't call yourself one.

Zeus posted...

No, in many ways it's far worse because it didn't merely involve somebody posting an offensive, off-the-cuff remark

You left out the word "racist" in your description. That's a fairly important piece of the puzzle you're rather conspicuously trying to tiptoe around.

And no, it's not "an offensive, off-the-cuff remark" if she immediately follows it up with several other "offensive, off-the-cuff remarks" (with enough space between them to allow for the targets of her ire to reply) and has a long, well-documented history of "offensive, off-the-cuff remarks".

You can stop pretending that Barr is some kind of misunderstood innocent who made one minor off-colour quip that's been blown out of proportion; she's a racist, anti-Semitic shithead and got exactly what she deserved. My only sympathy is for the rest of those involved with her show who are now left looking for work because of her idiocy.

Zeus posted...

but instead was pushed as part of the show, involved multiple writers/etc signing off on the idea, and so on

Yes, and that's tremendously shitty. You won't see me arguing that it's not.

But take a closer look at what you said. That fact that multiple people tacitly endorsed or supported what Bee said doesn't make her remark any worse like you're suggesting - the remark is the same, regardless if it's said by one person or a dozen. The only thing you've proven is that anyone who's criticizing Samantha Bee for what she said should also be criticizing her writing and editorial staff for signing off on it. You haven't made the actual statement any worse; just said that more people are responsible for it.
---

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!

As far as I know it was 3D Dot Game Heroes. If I played one previous to that I didn't notice it was a From Software game.
---

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!

Gunsandredroses posted...

I just think it's pathetic going after someone's family, especially over political beliefs. I thought it was wrong when some publications called Obama's daughters the S-word and I think it's wrong to attack Ivanka, Barron, Melania, and any other member of the Trump family

In most cases I would agree, but Ivanka is a member of the administration. She has an official job, duties, and title (and, IIRC, receives a government paycheque as a result). She's fair game for criticism.

Melania's a bit more of a grey area, since she is the First Lady and does use that position to further causes, but those causes are typically apolitical so unless the criticism is directly related to those causes (or she chooses to insert herself into the political side of things) I'd say she's probably off-limits. Barron is definitely so by dint of being a child. Eric and Don Jr. frequently comment on or insert themselves into the political aspects of their father's work, so I would say they're absolutely open to be criticized.

Zeus posted...

It is pretty funny that is coming around the same time as the Roseanne controversy

Oh please. If you think this is in any way comparable to the Roseanne controversy, you're delusional.

Bee's attack, while vulgar and definitely well past the bounds of good taste, was nothing more than a raunchy insult aimed at Ivanka Trump in service of a legitimate argument about Ivanka's role and actions (or lack thereof) regarding immigration. She apologized, as she should have, and did it without the "I was high on ambien, so lay off" equivocating that robbed Barr's response of its sincerity.

Barr, on the other hand, had no greater point, no argument that she was trying to put forward beyond slamming Valerie Jarette. Moreover, she didn't just insult Jarrett, she did so using racist invective (and immediately followed that up by calling George Soros - himself a holocaust survivor - a Nazi and accusing him of selling out his fellow Jews during the holocaust).

Bee was offensive, but Barr was flat-out racist, and there's a world of difference between those two that explains the difference in response. For those insisting that it's because Bee is a liberal and Barr a conservative, note that many conservatives have levelled the exact same insult that Bee used at Nancy Pelosi (along with other high-profile female liberals) and, to the best of my knowledge, none have faced serious public blowback for it.

What I find hilarious is Donald Trump's attempts to get on his high horse by asking where his apology from ABC is. Even ignoring the race issue I mentioned above, Trump's complaining rings more than a little hollow given his previous comments on grabbing women by their genitals, which were every bit as raunchy and offensive as anything Bee has ever said. That Trump couldn't even muster up a meagre "What Roseanne said was racist and awful and I in no way support it," while using the incident to loudly complain about how he is portrayed in the media speaks volumes about where his priorities are at.
---

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!

Firewood18 posted...

I remember being ashamed that I had to use a code to see blood while playing Mortal Kombat on my SNES while Genesis owners didn't.

You have that (sort of) backwards. Genesis owners had to use a code; SNES users flat-out had no blood outside of some very minor ones on the (heavily censored) fatalities (which, incidentally, weren't even called "Fatalities" on the SNES - they were referred to as "Finishing Bonus").
---

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!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Kneeling doesn't do shit for people getting shot and the NFL isn't getting people shot so not doing what the NFL expects of him is being defiant for no good reason.

He's making us have this conversation. That's exactly what he wanted.

Mission Accomplished, as far as he's concerned.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

MLK didn't hijack an event to push his agenda.

What do you mean he didn't hijack an event? He hijacked entire businesses. He and his protesters would enter into establishments and sit in the "whites only" section and refuse to leave. Or hold unauthorized marches that were ultimately broken up by police, white militias, and attack dogs.

That's a heck of a lot more disruptive that refusing to stand up while someone sings a song in a football game, which is why it's so hilarious to watch people lose their shit over this and act like he's committing some great act of civil disobedience.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I imagine you approve of people who protest by blocking public roads and throwing themselves in front of cars, after all, they're not harming anyone, the consequences are their own and people notice.
[...]
The guy is a god damn celebrity, he could've used his status to promote what matters to him, he'd get a strong following and it wouldn't be a problem but no, he has to interfere in other people's business to draw bad publicity his way.

I'm having a good giggle that you posted this immediately after referencing MLK, because this is exactly what people said about MLK at the time. That his protests were disruptive and offensive, that he had no right to harm public businesses that were just exercising their rights to segregate and discriminate against black people, that he'd be much better off trying to effect change "the normal way" instead of being a rabble rouser and angering people who might otherwise sympathize with him.

It worked out OK for him.
---

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!

Zeus posted...

Probably not your best line of defense because it has no relation to the actual subject at hand... which, you know, personifies the lame misdirections used in these memes.

Sorry, I thought that was Rosanne Barr in that picture. Must have been someone else who looks exactly like her and did the same thing.

Zeus posted...

I'm talking about what would happen to them, not what Trump would say about it.

Then you apparently didn't read my first post all the way through. Go back and give it another shot.
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

How is America oppressing black people again though?

Hmm, let's see... To pick just one example, closely related to what Kapernick is protesting, how about the fact that at virtually all levels the justice system is completely fucking them over? To wit:

-Police stop blacks (and Latinos) at significantly higher rates than whites (exact rates vary by area, but blacks are typically about 3x more likely to be stopped than whites).

-Police are also much more likely to conduct pat-downs on blacks. A study of NYPD data showed that white people were frisked during police interactions approximately 8% of the time, while PoC were frisked an eye-popping 85% of the time.

-Blacks use drugs at roughly equal rates to whites (actually a few percentage points less, but not enough to make a material difference), yet they are significantly more likely to be arrested and charged with a crime. Blacks make up approximately 14% of all monthly drug users, but they make up 37% of all people arrested for drug offences.

-Once arrested, blacks are more likely than whites to be held in prison than to be released on recognizance. Again, exact rates vary by area.

-Blacks, particularly black men, are convicted at higher rates than whites charged with the same crime.

-Sentencing is another area where blacks get screwed over. Blacks receive sentences that are, on average, 10% longer than whites charged with the same crime, are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences, and are 20% more likely to be sentenced to prison for minor crimes.

-This all culminates in some truly ridiculous numbers. Blacks are 13% of the population and 14% of monthly drug users, but make up 37% of drug arrests and 56% of the state prison population for drug offences. Black men are five times as likely as white men to serve time in prison during their life. This is true at the juvenile level as well; blacks make up 16% of the youth population, but make up 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile facilities, and 58% of youth sentenced to adult prison sentences.

This is all without touching the numerous high-profile cases of police gunning down unarmed blacks, or non-justice related issues like the fact that people with a stereotypical black name are significantly less likely to get callbacks for job applications than people with stereotypical white names with the exact same qualifications (this trend is so pronounced that white names with criminal records on their applications STILL received more callbacks than black names with a clean record).

Kapernick is absolutely correct - from police interactions to arrests to trials to sentencing to prison and beyond, blacks continually get the short end of the stick.
---

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!

Zeus posted...

Because they can't find anything relevant for their narrative.

Probably not your best line of attack, given that it's less than 48 hours after Barr basically outed herself on Twitter as the personification of every negative stereotype about Trump voters.

Zeus posted...

You know what would happen. Those players would be out on their asses so fast that it'd look like Colin Kaperninny had a long career.

Somehow I highly doubt that would be the case. I mean, do you really think Trump would call them "Sons of bitches" and suggest they should be thrown out of the country if it was the treatment of law enforcement that was being protested?
---

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!

OhhhJa posted...

I mean obviously feeling strongly enough about something to kneel and create widespread media attention to it is probably not a neutral statement firmly planted in the middle of respect and disrespect. He has his right to express that sentiment but it is what it is

Don't you find it kind of weird how he swapped from sitting to kneeling after a veteran pointed out to him that sitting was disrespectful?

Doesn't sound like he's trying to be disrespectful to me. He was trying to draw attention to a cause and he succeeded.

OhhhJa posted...

I know I'm slamming your hero bud but dude wore a che Guevara shirt as well. He loves America!

I mean, if you actually know Che Guevara you should also realise that those shirts are pretty much the antithesis of everything he stood for and he would likely find them extremely insulting.

And if everyone who wears a Che shirt is disrespecting America, you're going to have a much, much longer list of people to get mad at than you seem to realise.
---

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!

I always wonder what the reaction would be if, I dunno, a baseball team started taking a knee at games to protest the demonization and murder of police officers. Somehow I suspect conservatives would be much more muted about the "sacrosanct ritual" of standing for the anthem.

OhhhJa posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Not showing pride=/=disrespecting.

So you think that statement equates to respect? Lol

That's a pretty big leap from what adjl actually posted.
---

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!

Greenfox111 posted...

Lol frying pans have been weapons since chrono cross. Probably before that too, but i cant think of any others

Mario RPG comes to mind.
---

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!

Questionmarktarius posted...

So, sell ads. Carve out a "your ad here" box somewhere in the layout, stick a hyperlinked jpeg in there, and charge a monthly rate or something.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach for the internet of 20 years ago, and an absolute non-starter for today.

Back then, the content of website was set almost entirely by the hosts. Where user-made content existed, it was largely in the form of forums or chatrooms and was generally ancillary to whatever the main purpose of the site was.

Now? The overwhelming majority of time spent online is spent looking at content created by people other than the company hosting it, whether that's Youtube, Facebook, or Imgur. And that's a significant problem for advertisers because if I'm spending money to put my ad on your website, I want to know that the eyeballs that are seeing it are ones that are actually valuable to me. If I sell arthritis medication in Sweden, I don't want to waste my money by having my ad shown to eight-year-olds in Australia.

That's exactly why we have ad scripts in the first place. There's far, far too much content on sites like Youtube for them to be manually reviewed and have advertisements placed that way, so the algorithm looks at who you are, where you live, what sort of videos and websites you visit, and shows you ads it thinks will be relevant to you (which, at least on the surface, is not an indefensible practice - I would much rather see ads for things I'm actually likely to buy rather than stuff that isn't even remotely applicable to me).

The internet has moved far beyond the sort of model your advocating. No advertiser would ever support that model and understandably 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!

Brawl isn't anywhere near as bad as its detractors make it out to be, but I do prefer Melee.
---

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!

Horrible voice acting aside, yes, it was a good game. I still like X5 better, but X4 is pretty close.

X6 is awful, though. Worst of the 2D MMX games by a mile.
---

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!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yellow posted...

All the ads come from Google, which GameFAQs has no control over.

They choose which ad server to use in the first place, which is the point where their responsibility begins.

It's not that simple, particularly because all ad networks suffer from this issue to some extent.

Ad providers upload their ads to the network and the network QA is supposed to catch the bad ones, but - for a variety of reasons - "bad" ads (ranging from ads that are annoying, NSFW, or straight-up malware) can slip through, often by way of malice on behalf of the ad creator (which is exactly why most ad networks now feature a "report this ad" function).

The issue is not with any one player; the entire system is broken. The end users don't like it because of annoying or dangerous ads, the advertisers don't like it because they have shockingly little control over who sees their ads and profits from their ad dollars (like Google's own adverts showing up on ISIS recruitment videos on Youtube), and the hosts don't like it because bad ads scare away traffic while ad-blockers kill their main means of generating revenue (and that is a significant problem - more than 50% of internet connections now use an ad blocker and a good portion of the ones that don't are on smartphones, which have much less space for ads compared to a computer).

I find that people dramatically underestimate the scope and scale of this issue. The entire free internet - from Youtube to Facebook to Google to this very site - is built on the dollars of ad revenue and that system is now showing some very significant signs of collapse (like Youtube's "adpocalyse" a while ago). There's a reason why seemingly every independent website these days has a Patreon and is soliciting donations, because advertising money just isn't enough to keep the doors open anymore. This is, to my eye, a problem that is just as threatening to the idea of a free, independent internet as Net Neutrality (with a lot of the same outcomes if advertising collapses altogether), but unlike NN there's no one actor to blame and no government agency to lobby in order to fix the issue.
---

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!

MICHALECOLE posted...

ReggieTheReckless posted...

Do you bounty hunt for Jabba Hutt to finance your vette?

Wait is that what the line is? I thought it was to pay off my debts

Nope, it is 100% "to finance my 'vette."

Hell, the song is called "Fett's Vette".
---

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!

Is this seriously a thing now? People are expected to respond to every single text message sent to them?

That's ridiculous. I'll echo what others have said - you have absolutely no basis for confronting her. But if you absolutely must...

Red_Frog posted...

Helicopter.

---

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!

Zeus posted...

A generation that's never been compelled to serve is talking tough about a man who was excused from service from a war that they weren't called to fight and, in all likelihood, would have run for the border if they had been.

And? What does this prove? You've already pointed out the obvious logical flaw in your argument, which is that no American under the age of 50 (i.e. nearly everyone on this site) would have ever been faced with the draft, making it a moot point to try and call people out on.

Trump, on the other hand, was around for those years and was called to serve. And he ducked and ran like a coward (and his "bone spurs" excuse rings a bit hollow given that he was apparently fit enough to play football in college). Now that's not, in and of itself, an indefensible thing - plenty of people did the same thing (including Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush [sort of], and Mitt Romney). But it does make his call to nationalism ring more than a little bit hollow, given his own shirking of national duty (one which, I might point out, had much more riding on it than a decision to stand or kneel for the national anthem).
---

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!

This is such low-quality bait, how is it this successful?
---

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!

Krazy_Kirby posted...

trentpac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

trentpac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

We should move all non-Natives to the reservations and let the Natives take their land back, tbh

If I remember correctly reservations take up 2-3% of the total land mass of the United States. We're going to be packed in like sardines up in here.

Serves us right for stealing their land

I know what you mean but if that were to actually happen I think that you'd be singing a different tune.

it was a war, land gets taken in war. giving people stuff for things you ancestors might have done is bullshit

Except it wasn't a war. Several times the US signed treaties as to what land was theirs and what land belonged to the Natives, then proceeded to ignore said treaties.

This was most famous in the "Trail of Tears", where Andrew Jackson flat-out ignored a Supreme Court ruling that stated that the Cherokee nation was a sovereign nation and the US, therefore, did not have jurisdiction within it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
---

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!

Of those? Bill Cosby. An all around shitty human being he may be, but he was damn funny in his standup routines.

All time? Stephen Wright, with second place going to Lewis Black. Honourable mentions go to Jeff Foxworthy, Gabriel Iglesias, and Jon Steinburg (who I'm about 99% certain nobody else on this board will have heard of).
---

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!

Till Lindemann (Rammstein) and it's not even particularly close.

Dude has an incredible range and can do everything from operatic tenor to a resonant baritone.
---

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!

Zeus posted...

Even if you take all of the insults and threats off the table, it was starting to seem like NK didn't really have much intention of completely suspending the program.

"Starting to seem"? Kim was never going to denuclearize and most people who were paying attention voiced that immediately when he went on his charm offensive. After all the time, money, and effort put into developing a nuclear weapons program, did you really think that Kim was going to just toss it all away on a promise from the US (who, notably, just broke a very similar promise made to Iran)?

North Korea has a long history of promising to behave in return for concessions and aid, then promptly reneging on those promises the instant that aid is delivered. Kim's father even pulled the same stunt that junior just did with the test site when he blew up a nuclear cooling tower to prove he was "serious" about disarmament.

I'm astounded that Trump (and, for that matter, the rest of the Asian powers, given that they really should know better by now) got suckered in as far as he did with that sort of a track record.

Zeus posted...

The disarmament was concluded in 2004. The revolution was 2011 and kinda unrelated to the WMD disarmament.

Was it? You don't think that the foreign powers - including the US - might have hesitated to throw their weight behind the anti-government forces if it meant war with a nuclear-armed Libya that had little to lose at that point?

That's why calling it "the Libya model" was so brazenly stupid (and, I suspect, deliberately so from Bolton's perspective, given that he's been a strong voice for military intervention against North Korea for years now). Protip when dealing with autocrats - don't bring up other autocracies where the dictator in charge was violently deposed and beaten to death. Whether or not you think the disarmament was related to Gaddafi's ultimate fate, it's not difficult to see that North Korea would probably make that connection.
---

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!

Pretty much the correct decision. By all appearances Trump was about to get bent over a barrel in this conference; it never should have been agreed to in its current format and plainly had insufficient planning put into it. Best to cut losses now while it's still limited to just Trump's reputation and an increase in North Korea's status in Asia.

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah Obama would've just been like, "yes mr. Kim, whatever you want, sir! You guys can have all the nukes you want. Just please don't threaten us anymore! It's very scary!"

It's funny to me that you think this given that Obama was a major proponent of the "maximum pressure" sanctions effort that was widely credited with putting North Korea in a position where they would even want to negotiate.

I don't mean to poke holes in your right-wing ranting, but Obama was anything but soft on North Korea.
---

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!

GameReviews posted...

Why does it matter? You want me to categorize my beliefs so you can put me in a box of preconceived notions?

Exactly! Glad you understand.

Also, I don't know why everyone keeps making up their own categories when I already provided a perfectly good set in the OP that already lists the other options people are writing in for themselves.
---

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!

I think I covered everything
---

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!

rjsilverthorn posted...

There are very few video games older than me and I can't say I play any of them regularly.

This, although I have played them before.
---

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!

Subbed.

There's a simple reason for this which is not often discussed and that is that whenever you're dubbing a cartoon or movie or even a video game cutscene, you face the difficult task of not only translating the work accurately (which can be hit or miss) but also trying to match the tempo and cadence of the translated work to the original.

Things can take much longer to say in one language than another, which means that either the dub voice actors may have to say a line unnaturally quickly or else introduce awkward pauses in the middle of their lines in order to match up to the animation.

And this is all without touching on "untranslatable" things. To use an obvious example, Japanese suffixes will immediately tell you about the relationship between two characters but they are all almost completely untranslatable into English. Likewise with idioms, double-speak, deliberate ambiguity, etc. My Japanese still isn't to the point where I can watch anime in Japanese without subtitles, but I can usually pick up enough to add context to what the subtitles fail to capture.
---

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!

This is it.

This is the dumbest topic.
---

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!

Person106 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

I never seem to want to get excited for social causes and I think the best dollars Ive ever spent were on myself.

That's one of the most annoying things about millennials, "social causes."

Implying that this isn't something that literally every generation has.

The lost generation had women's suffrage
The GI generation and the silent generation had various forms of social welfare
The boomers had civil rights and anti-war protests
Generation X had environmentalism and gay rights

Seriously, if you don't have social causes it means your generation is failing the planet because you're not making any efforts to improve things.
---

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!

Far-Queue posted...

Legend of the Mystical Ninja

Any answer other than this is wrong.
---

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!

GanglyKhan posted...

darkknight109 posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Yowza, both the worst games in recent history for each series IMO.

Someone hasn't played Fire Emblem Fates...

Or Shadow Dragon, depending on how loose we're being with the term "recent history".

I really enjoyed Fates and found SoV to be intriguing since they did not go ahead with the modern systems for combat, which was a nice change of pace. Awakening's maps really killed the game for me. The second and third "arcs" of the game pick up in quality, but it doesn't make those first 13 chapters any more enjoyable.

And I am not counting SD, just the 3DS games for both series.

I don't know how you could like Birthright or Revelation over Awakening, since both of them basically *are* Awakening, but with shittier characters, a terrible story, and even less of a pretense of difficulty than Awakening had.

Conquest I could see, given that Conquest had far more interesting maps than Awakening did and is probably the most challenging English FE game since FE7, but even then you have to overlook an absolutely putrescent story.
---

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!

Jen0125 posted...

I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant at all but it's sweet you tried to really stretch it into something to have his back lol :P

Looking back I guess my reply was more a reaction to what you said than what his original post was.

Eh. Whatever.
---

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!