Lurker > Blackstar110

CableZL posted...

Yeah, I just don't see how AMC would even crack $100 when it was never anywhere near that before the pandemic. People aren't going to be going to theaters more than they were pre-pandemic, especially since covid is still hanging around.

AMC isnt a fundamentals play, its a squeeze play. Theres a boatload of shorted shares and retail owns roughly 80% of the float. If the shorts are ever made to actually pay up, as they should be, AMC can absolutely go nuclear. Its more about if you think the hedge funds who tried to short it to bankruptcy will be let off the hook, which, well. I dont trust our government or Wall Street as far as I can throw them.

Anyway, all goes to say that pretty much every AMC investor would agree its already probably overpriced based on the strength of the company. Its all about whether or not it will have a big squeeze. Same philosophy as GME.

---

-Shred

Thats not enough money for me to do it, but I wont judge anyone who would need the $1000 that much.

---

-Shred

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I wonder if this is it though or if it's worth buying in again

I am no expert, but from what I can see the short interest hasn't gone anywhere, meaning if one of the reasons you bought in was because of the short-selling, that's not been covered.

I have ~400 shares at like $8 apiece so I'm gonna ride the lightning for a bit here. It was more fun when it was at $70 but it's house money at this point. I can't decide if I would be willing to buy back in at $50 where it is now, but that's probably the price you have to pay to play if you want a shot at it going nuclear like Gamestonk did.

---

-Shred

Dark Souls, probably

---

-Shred

Callimbmachus posted...

Upheld. What a fucking joke

Lmao

honestly some of the mods here just make up whatever interpretation of what people say that they feel like and moderate them for implying shit they made up

---

-Shred

Older I get the more I realize I prefer a more linear experience. The omg so open 400 hours of content crap is played out and the only one of those I have genuinely really enjoyed is Breath of the Wild, which I think was because there was so much fun to be had just dicking around with the game mechanics and engine. I always get hyped to buy these huge games and then just feel so directionless or uninspired that my interest wanes.

Now I dont mind some choice in where to go and when, but you can marry the two with a little railroading. I know thats used as a naughty word for game design, but I dont mind when a game says you can explore areas A, B, and C in whatever order, but you cant get to area D until you do at least two of A, B, and C or some such. Dark Souls 1 was really good at that where you had a lot of the world to play with but couldnt get to Sens until you hit certain thresholds. The great lords power seals were a little on the nose but Sens/Anor Londo was a good linear limitation on an overall more open design.

All that being said, Ive started to get over this feeling that I should want a huge open game with hundreds of hours by default. The vast majority of my favorite games ever are less than ~40 hours, some as little as 10. Theyre just tighter experiences.

---

-Shred

Think this is pretty much fact. We can sympathize with Walts plight but you dont make the choices he makes if you havent always been kind of a bastard. I mean, hell, his first major act of the show is to blackmail a former student into helping him sell meth, lol.

That doesnt mean he had no redeeming qualities ever, but he was always a prideful and resentful man with a lot of simmering rage.

---

-Shred

I think fighting for social justice is great. I also think there are a LOT of people whose primary motive is look at me!!! and that is annoyingly cynical.

---

-Shred

Tenlaar posted...

Yeah, I really do think that possibly the single biggest game changing event for mankind at this point would be the invention of actual, reliable "set phasers to stun" kind of non-lethal ranged methods. I wish that so much more effort would be put into that area.

Also agree with this, though. I just said that this morning -- we need to make it a priority to invest in some kind of stun gun that is as effective at quickly stopping people in their tracks.

---

-Shred

Goddamn this topic aged badly

I completely understand why your initial assumption goes the wrong way, but a whole lot of name-calling in the first couple of pages when this cop very likely saved that girl's life.

---

-Shred

Hornezz posted...

Every time this is mentioned I can't help but think America just hates any sort of workers' rights. Why are so many people okay with being treated like shit by their employers?

Correct. A lot of American workers are brainwashed to believe that being worked to the bone (and having a side hustle on top of that) is the only way to be meaningfully productive.

---

-Shred

All this because Waters said they should keep protesting and be confrontational? I get that that could be taken the wrong way, but the whole civil rights movement was confrontational.

---

-Shred

It's so, so much money, but that's a lot of suffering and sorrow to inflict for it.

---

-Shred

TLOU Remake is already coming out?

---

-Shred

fan357 posted...

The demo sucks. Its almost all cutscenes.

Also that, its a half hour demo with one minute of combat, ten minutes of exploring, and nineteen minutes of exposition. Id overlook it if even one of the combat, exploring, or exposition were particularly standout

---

-Shred

Pome posted...

haven't played the demo yet but it looks really good graphcially wtf utalking about

It looks fine graphically, but like, nothing to write home about IMO. Certainly doesnt look bad, there are some things that look quite nice, but the segment with the enemies in the tall grass, I thought both the grass and the enemies looked unremarkable and Im not sure if you lump this into graphics, but the facial animation on Elena was REALLY wooden. The buildings and stuff look pretty good though.

My point is kinda the same as gameplay, I guess, it wasnt bad but nothing about it jumped out as woah, I gotta buy this yet.

---

-Shred

I didnt hate it, Im gonna try the castle demo next week, but I wasnt particularly moved and I went in ready to be sold.

Not very graphically impressive, and you only fight like three of the same kind of enemies and they were kinda just bullet sponges. The voice acting + dialogue was hit or miss with some very wooden delivery and bad facial animation. The movement and crafting felt a little clunky to me. There was one thing that happened that caught me by surprise and was a cool moment but even then Im not sure if I shouldve seen it coming now that I think about it, when the dad turned and killed everyone. The directional audio was cool, but Im gonna have to leave 3D Audio off still. Its just so muffled, its not worth the tradeoff imo.

All told, it wasnt BAD. Wasnt good, either.

---

-Shred

What's also crazy about Patrick is that he was kind of just added as a nice grounding experience for David but was not initially intended to stick around and be as central as he was. The chemistry was just so damn good though that he ended up being an enormous part of the show.

---

-Shred

yusiko posted...

there is one thing about schitts creek that i didnt like and it happened in the final episode
and just by saying that i think everyone knows what im talking about when david let the masseuse give him a happy ending on his wedding day. never should have happened

Wasn't my favorite but I can't say it stuck with me as particularly bad. It's not like he sought it out, it appeared like Patrick very deliberately paid for it.

---

-Shred

Phenomenal show. Possibly my two favorite scenes in the whole thing were Johnny defending Roland in S2 and Roland defending Johnny in S6. Loved that. Despite that, I would say my favorite character was probably still Alexis. That actress is fucking hilarious. She can crank out 10 facial expressions per sentence and all of them are funny.

I also echo the sentiment above that David and Patrick are the most effortlessly rootable LGBT couple I've seen in media largely because of what Dan Levy has said was the intent -- there's no preaching, there's no lesson, they're just a happy lovable meet-cute like any other couple. That's also probably more effective at teaching acceptance on accident than something that actively TRIES to teach acceptance.

---

-Shred

DavidZ2844 posted...

Bump, 53 posts now :)

52

---

-Shred

Guide posted...

This doesn't make any sense. You agreed to follow the rules when you made the account. You signed up for a system, the workings of which are explained, and now deny what you agreed to in the first place.

Maybe just read more.

this dude legit thinks every rule in place is inherently right and should never be changed or subject to criticism

whew lad!

---

-Shred

Guide posted...

If you understand it, why do you get mad at a guy who's whole role is following and maintaining the rules?

Blackstar110 posted...

something being "how the ToU works" and something being morally correct are not always a 1:1 parallel, and people are entitled to think that maybe the original user in your example should not be permitted for previous Nazi behavior and deserves to have people be reminded of their Nazism

Someone enforcing "the rules" is not exempt from criticism if "the rules" defend people who have said or done some heinous shit and stifle anyone pointing it out.

---

-Shred

Veggeta X posted...

I made a topic about the logic you guys use here but guess I'll have to post it here as well:

This is 100% correct and everyone understands this.

What it does not appear everyone understands is that something being "how the ToU works" and something being morally correct are not always a 1:1 parallel, and people are entitled to think that maybe the original user in your example should not be permitted for previous Nazi behavior and deserves to have people be reminded of their Nazism.

---

-Shred

MrMallard posted...

The same discord where some dude spends time grooming underage users?

No, the NFLB discord. WhiteBarrett's is separate.

---

-Shred

Guide posted...

I bet 10 karma and half a chili dog that, should you decide to stay in this topic, you will work yourself into a melty.

This topic began with a melty in Post #1 and you've jumped straight to insulting my intelligence for daring to besmirch Error's honor, so it's gonna be hard to work up from there in terms of histrionics.

I'm just explaining the incident in question, since people were confused! I am a Good Samaritan.

---

-Shred

NoMeLx22x posted...

I'm a long time poster/mostly lurker now of the NFL board.

It has turned into a gross place. Anti-semitism and racist undertones in a lot of posts that just kind of go under the radar. It's really sad to see.

to be fair, pretty much everyone you used to know is in the discord now and barely visits the board precisely because the only people left there are 95% trash

---

-Shred

Gobstoppers12 posted...

#NiceDeflection

It's not a deflection, I explained why people say what they say about Barrett and Error himself admitted in the OP that he moderates anyone who calls Barrett what he is.

If your reaction to that is "excuse me sir, have you consulted the GameFAQs Terms of Use?" then like, okay, we've all got priorities!

---

-Shred

Guide posted...

Ask me how I know that you never actually read the rules.

Ask me if I care about "the rules" of a dying video game website

---

-Shred

TLoU2 is an easy top five game of the gen, so that. "Linear with a good story" is pretty much exactly what the TLoU games do, though 2 has a brief more open segment a couple hours in.

---

-Shred

The reason Error gets trolled as a "pedophile defender" is because he usually mods any and all references to the WhiteBarrett stuff that's been posted in this topic and, as you saw in the OP, admittedly "constantly moderated" anyone calling Barrett a pedophile. When we asked him why he wouldn't do anything about Barrett, he said "I'm not the cops, call the police," kept moderating us instead, and seemed to join and stay in Barrett's server.

just saying!!!!!!

---

-Shred

Joel95 posted...

Yeah TLOU2 retconned Joel to make him look worse. Because in the end of the first game, you being forced to stab a doctor on the neck and then shooting Marlene (who let him live twice) on the stomach and then shooting her in the head when she's begging for her life was supposed to make Joel look really heroic.

Lol exactly. I mean forget the word heroic because you can debate that Joel doing what was necessary to save his surrogate daughter was heroic in a sense, but still. No idea how you can play TLOU1, watch Joel blow Marlenes head off after shes already down purely to prevent anyone from coming after them, and then be upset at TLOU2 because Joel left bloodstains behind and looked mad :( Is the issue at hand simply that TLOU2 had Joel kill the other two doctors?

like... to call that a retcon... woof

EDIT: I just checked and Im pretty sure the game doesnt even assert Joel killed anyone except Jerry and three soldiers in the hallway outside the room, lol. You only see the one body when Abby finds him and the scene in the beginning where Joel picks up Ellie doesnt show anyone except Jerry, so the other two doctors could just be huddling in the corner if thats how you played it out in your game. So at this point were really complaining that Joel killed three armed guards in the hospital sequence. Is it even possible to beat that section without killing anyone? Whats the complaint?

---

-Shred

I frankly cannot imagine getting mad that the game retconned Joel to... look angry when he killed the doctor who was about to kill Ellie and brandishing a scalpel at him. The cmon baby girl stuff played out exactly the same way, and youre acting like they made Joel laugh maniacally as he carved through them with a machete.

What he did at the hospital was dark and violent even if you believe he was 100% in the right given the circumstance. He blew Marlene to kingdom come as she laid on the ground defenseless. Again, you can argue he had to, but its still dark. If your threshold for a retcon is that TLOU1 lets you choose if he kills one or three doctors and TLOU2 decided it was three, youre gonna be upset by most sequels to anything ever.

---

-Shred

Darmik posted...

I don't know how you can find something like this hard to understand. She both resents him for what he did but still loves him.

This is an example of how it's so difficult to talk to you about this game. You completely misunderstand the sequel and characters to the point where it seems like willful ignorance.

Ding ding ding! It's really not complicated for Ellie to both love Joel and resent what he did. I have no idea what Avantgarde thinks was "retconned" outside of Joel killing three doctors instead of a minimum of one... Darmik here is right, it's hard to have these conversations in good faith when it feels like the people you're talking to are being disingenuous. How can you claim to be all about the ambiguity while also pretending to not understand how Ellie could have conflicted emotions about Joel?

Also, yeah, whether Joel "did the right thing" or not is and was debatable and not even remotely what Ashley Johnson was talking about, so not sure why that Troy quote came up. Pretty sure everyone here understands why Joel did what he did and I personally would probably do the same. Doesn't change a lick about what Ashley said about Ellie.

---

-Shred

Kureejii Lea posted...

Time is running out

I have 54 posts!

---

-Shred

---

-Shred

Appreciate everyone keeping it alive. I do wanna get around to finishing this.

---

-Shred

AvantgardeAClue posted...

No 15 year old will realistically be willing to sacrifice themselves on a "maybe" which is all the Fireflies were offering, c'mon now.

Riley was the first to die....then Tess...then Sam... Im still waiting for my turn.

Ellie explicitly tells Joel she has survivor's guilt and still feels like she should be dead. She then reaffirms that stance in the flashback at the end of TLOU2 where she says she was supposed to die in the hospital. Ellie is a character absolutely wracked with survivor's guilt and on top of that feels robbed of her purpose in life, to "be the cure."

You can definitely argue Ellie, as a 15 year old, is not really of sound mind to make that call. You can also argue that maybe when it actually came time for her to say "yes, I'm ready to die" she wouldn't have been able to muster it up. Aside from that, I've got absolutely no idea where you got this confidence that Ellie would never be willing to sacrifice herself. That's kinda like... her whole thing. The Left Behind DLC went out of its way to hammer home how central this is to her character. What you're describing as a "common theory" that she just accepted Joel was lying and it was for the best was simply never the case and is a fundamental misreading of the scene and the character.

Ashley Johnson even said at the time seven years ago that Ellie didn't believe Joel. "Ellie through the game has a really good bullshit detector... so when Joel says that 'oh, you know, yeah, the Fireflies, it didn't end up working', she KNOWS he's lying." Say what you will about Word of God as a source, but I think that's simply supplemental confirmation of what's already obvious in game.

Darmik said a lot of this too, and said it very well. Yes, TLOU was "ambiguous" in its morality but a lot of the people claiming that TLOU2 ruined the ambiguity seem to be referring to things in TLOU1 that were NOT actually very ambiguous and were just not paying terribly close attention. To be so confident that Ellie would definitely not sacrifice herself to the Fireflies that you're like "c'mon now" to anyone who suggests otherwise only serves to make it look like your memory of the first game is fuzzy or that you willfully ignored things it told you to headcanon your interpretation.

---

-Shred

Darmik posted...

Yeah I don't get the impression that TLOU2 really made any declarations about the ending.

Hell the opening scene is his brother saying he'd do the same thing.

But I always had the interpretation at the end of TLOU1 that their relationship would never be the same because Ellie knew Joel did something to get her out and Joel would never admit it because he'd know Ellie would get upset and see him differently. Which is what the sequel went with.

Same. I thought it was fairly clear she could kinda tell he was lying but sort of had no choice but to believe him at the time.

But yeah, what you said about Tommy validating his choice is exactly it. Its why I struggle with these conversations. Even the more eloquent people who want to debate me on why I liked it (as opposed to just dumping on it or whatever) tend to eventually circle back to how the game tries to make you feel guilty or tries to make you hate Joel/Ellie and I just kinda dont know what game they played, I guess. If people wanna criticize the pacing or narrative structure, I dont really agree but thats fine, just difference of opinion. Some stuff is just still like ...what? to me though.

---

-Shred

Shablagoo posted...

^Youre right, thats fair. I dont think it factored into Joels decision, it just makes it easier for me to justify his actions from the outside.

For sure, and I think that's natural because we love Joel and Ellie. At the same time, I've noticed a lot of people in the TLOU2 discourse leaning hard on "the scientific odds of it working were low" as a defense for Joel's actions when I think if we're being honest that a) it's a complete non-factor in Joel's decision and b) it's a bit of a weird line to draw for scientific practicality in a game where spores turn you into a mushroom man that hurls poisonous bombs at people, you know?

I personally think it's implied that it would've worked, but it's also kind of immaterial. The ethical question asked about Joel's decision is the same in both games -- does a father's love for his child morally justify killing the people trying to sacrifice her for a cure? A mirror question can be asked for the Fireflies -- even assuming the cure is a 100% slam dunk, is it justifiable to kill and harvest an unconscious child for it? If it's ethically acceptable to kill one kid, would it be ethically acceptable to kill 10? 100? If it's not a "slam dunk," what's the percentage of certainty where it becomes acceptable? Where's the line?

There aren't easy answers to these questions and there never were. I think people got so settled on their own answer from TLOU1 over seven years that, when reminded by TLOU2 that it was a pretty complex thing, they took it as the game declaring their previous view was wrong. No, there just was never a "right answer" and there still isn't, never will be. Whatever you thought of Joel's actions in TLOU1 is still valid and nothing in TLOU2 should really have changed that unless you simply re-evaluated and came to a new conclusion on your own.

---

-Shred

Shablagoo posted...

Thats basically a retcon though. It was never made clear in the first game and, regardless, no one ever actually gave Ellie the choice. Both the Fireflies and Joel were choosing for her.

My personal opinion? The Fireflies plan, as presented in the first game, was so half-baked and desperate that I dont blame Joel at all. There was a 90% chance that they would have killed Ellie for nothing.

I think youre right about both parties choosing for her and that lack of autonomy is a big part of Ellie being a bit messed up in TLOU2.

I do think youre wrong in assessing the scientific merits of their plan into Joels decision. He wouldve killed everyone in that hospital if you showed him 100% proof. And thats not necessarily evil, thats something I think many, many fathers would do. Dismissing the Fireflies chances of actually making the cure and using that in defense of Joel actually makes his decision LESS complex and is kind of a cop out on the choice he makes.

---

-Shred

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The ambiguity from the first game's ending is what made it so good and so highly discussed.

Too bad they've now decided that they need to lecture the player and tell them that it was a bad decision after all

Luckily, the game neither lectures the player nor asserts it was a bad decision in any way that was not immediately obvious in TLOU1 (killing a bunch of people resulting in people mourning the deaths of those people).

The morality of Joels decision is literally not remotely impacted by the events of TLOU2. Joel killed a shitload of people to save Ellie and prevented a cure from being attempted whether it wouldve worked or not can be debated but was also entirely immaterial to Joels choice. Marlene alone in TLOU1 humanized the Fireflies as we know Ellie liked and trusted her as a friend of her moms. If you never factored huh, I guess those people probably had friends and families into the equation until being shown Abby, thats kind of just on your lack of imagination, not any change to the story.

---

-Shred

Also as for the necessity of the remake, for topicality, I dont think its necessary but by the time this thing comes out, were probably talking about a ten year anniversary, not to mention syncing up with the show. The previous remaster was basically an upscale a year after release. Skyrim treatment is hardly a fair charge IMO

---

-Shred

Joel95 posted...

Tbh, when I finished TLOU1 back in 2013, I thought that in the sequel that Ellie would find out and Joel would be a complete asshole about it and say that she's not grateful for it and would be possessive of her. But it turned out that he was really respectful after her being mad at him and gave her space and time to be able to forgive him if she wanted.

That too! He knew lying to her for that long was fucked up and was as contrite as could be while still protecting her, despite getting nothing in return from her. Joel was still a good and selfless dad to her after the lie was exposed. You could say the lie was selfish it probably was. That just makes Joel human, not some maniacal villain that were meant to root for his brains to get bashed in. So many people seem to think the game wanted you to think Abby was pure and Ellie+Joel are evil and to this day I have no idea what game they played.

---

-Shred

Can't believe it's been a year and people ITT still somehow think TLOU2 was trying to make Joel look evil. If anything, it was kinder to him than TLOU1 was. You felt for his pain in the first game, but he's established to be a gruff, hard-hearted smuggler who had spent plenty of time doing so much horrid shit in the apocalypse that it alienated his own brother, and only towards the end does he start to get back in touch with his vulnerability as a human. In the second, you actually saw him opened back up as a person, being a part of a community, a loving father figure to Ellie, and trying to help strangers in need (for which he unfortunately pays the price in this world). The game goes to painstaking lengths to communicate that none of Joel, Abby, or Ellie are binary good or evil characters and that they are simply people trying to navigate a fucked up world as best they can, and their individual actions are up to you to make a determination on. Even a character like Abby's dad is shown to be a hypocrite for his inability to say he'd be willing to do to Abby what he's about to do to Ellie. I liked Joel MORE after the second game; judging the morality of his various actions since Sarah's death is difficult and nuanced, but his love for Ellie was super pure. That museum sequence. Ugh.

Then again, I don't know why I'm bothering since the same people that can't get their heads around this also think TLOU2 was "obsessively woke" for having a trans kid and... not retconning Ellie to be straight I guess, I still don't know what the problem was exactly. Large overlap with the crowd that somehow thought Manny was a Druckmann insert or some shit.

---

-Shred

ProfessorKukui posted...

Reportado no hay fotografias

---

-Shred

While Carlin would certainly have people attempting to cancel him, it also amuses me that people then think oh yeah, hed be right wing! Are you kidding me? He would loathe the current state of the GOP.

Carlin took on everyone.

---

-Shred

Highly contextual

For example, your text in the OP about being unable to make it is made better if the person then suggests another time theyre open. Without that, yeah, its probably just patronizing

---

-Shred

BuckVanHammer posted...

gf bed

yep, in her dorm room. We were both virgins and married now

---

-Shred

meralonne posted...

Personally, I found very, very few of the dark souls 2 bosses to be fun.

Same. Very forgettable crew, hence their rather low placements on this list.

---

-Shred