Lurker > ParanoidObsessive

Zangulus posted...

Nothing.

---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

LinkPizza posted...

That one is easy to deal with. Especially if you know how people are going to answer. Sometimes, you might want to say stuff like, I know you dont have to do X and stuff, but I just want to know how to do it.

Yes, But like I said:

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I got to the point where I'd basically preface questions with "I'm not asking for opinions about why I shouldn't do this, or what alternatives there are, I just want to know how to do THIS", and you'd still get a dozen people not answering the actual question.

So I'm doing exactly what you're saying, and still having the exact same issue.



LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, thats just what you have to do... And youll always have the people who want to answer another way. Just ignore it. Usually, someone will have your answer...

But that's my point - that isn't what you HAVE to do. Because even when you DO do it, you're still generally not going to get the answer you're looking for, while there are better places to get the answer faster, more efficiently, and more accurately elsewhere.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Revelation34 posted...

I bet everybody blames video games.

They're likely a symptom more than a cause, but technologization in general is probably at the root of the problem.

The concept of "teenager" didn't really exist until the Industrial Revolution, when the greater need for training and education sort of pushed "adulthood" back (and concomitantly increased overall lifespan). The Technological Revolution basically did the same thing again, making higher education more of a necessity and increasing lifespan even more, and likely played a role in the last generation or so tending to be "childish" much later into life.

There are probably other factors - like most social issues, it's a lot more complicated than a single root cause being responsible for everything.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe youre asking wrong. Whenever I ask a question on here or Reddit, I get direct answers.

Yeah, sure, blame the victim!

But honestly, it's hard to use that logic when you ask something basically akin to "How do you do X?", and the next thirty posts are "You shouldn't do X", "X is stupid", "Y is way better", "Personally I prefer Z", "Why would anyone want to do X?", "No one should ever care about X", "Not doing X is totally fine, don't worry about X", or any number of similar non-answers that basically just involve people shitting their opinions into the topic in the most unhelpful way possible.

Which then becomes doubly annoying if you're on a faster moving board or subreddit where you have to keep your topic bumped for people to see it, and where the multitude of other bad answers may discourage people from bothering to come in and answer it themselves (on Reddit, at least, topics definitely have a half-life).

I got to the point where I'd basically preface questions with "I'm not asking for opinions about why I shouldn't do this, or what alternatives there are, I just want to know how to do THIS", and you'd still get a dozen people not answering the actual question.

Then I'd go on YouTube and type in "How do you do X" and get a dozen videos people made showing you exactly how to do X. Half of which didn't even have the annoying voice-overs people are complaining about, and half of which you could easily mute anyway. Or I'd type in the name of the game and +"wiki" into a search engine, find the wiki for the game, and look up whatever it was I needed in about 30 seconds.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

I always love watching supposed adults getting really bent over kid's movies.

We've spent the last 30 or so years generally infantilizing ourselves as a culture, so pretty much everyone under the age of 70 is a glorified child at this point anyway. Nothing about this is really news.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

MrMelodramatic posted...

looked up his wiki. I don't think I've ever seen a movie he's in.

Well, now you know what you should be spending your next month or so doing, don't you?


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

RCtheWSBC posted...

I've been sitting on an uninstalled Borderlands since 2011. No good reason for it, either. Just never gave the series a chance.

Borderlands is okay, but kind of bland. Borderlands 2 is much better.

But at least part of that is more the writing and characterization than straight up combat mechanics, because mere gameplay hasn't been my #1 selling point for any game since the late 1980s.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I'd say when you factor in the full price of a video game (which includes DLC and microtransaction costs as well as retail price), and when you consider the content of games themselves (which may include major games being deliberately gimped to sell the aforementioned microtransactions), I'd say most games these days feel like they're not worth what's being charged for them, but there are at least a few that feel like they should cost twice as much because of how good they are.

"Developers have to charge more because costs are higher than ever" is something of a fallacy, though, because it assumes static pricing and ignores the fact that a lot of those extra costs are things the developers themselves forced on themselves without customers actually asking for them. And we've already seen smaller studios generate triple-A level (or better) quality games with a fraction of triple-A budgets.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

WastelandCowboy posted...

Jen0125 posted...

I think this is the beginning of the reboot of the series. So it's not linked to the previous ones.

And more importantly, not filled with Michael-Bayisms.

No endless explosions or endless patriotic fanfare to the armed forces. No endless product placement or childish humor or racial stereotypes.

Was going to point this out - it's the first one Bay wasn't directly involved in, so it at least had a chance to go for a different tone and not be the usual shit.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

RCtheWSBC posted...

Gotta expand your horizons, PO.

My horizons are plenty expanded. But it's an old curmudgeon's prerogative to sample all sorts of things across the broad spectrum of life, and then start shitting all over all the stuff they didn't like.

If I ever want to play a four-person co-op shooter I'm way more likely to play Borderlands 2 than I am Left 4 Dead.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

No, but then again I've never wanted to play Left 4 Dead 2 without sex, either.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Also, since no one else has mentioned it, Tombstone is an absolutely awesome movie and everyone should watch it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Wii3Kings posted...

Big Trouble in Little China

---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Regardless of whether or not I'd know a good system is immaterial, because what I DO know is a worthwhile game library - and that's all I really care about.

Which is why I don't own an Xbox One and have no desire to ever buy one.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Blighboy posted...

I'll admit that Eragon shamelessly ripped off Star Wars but that doesn't mean Eragon is Star Wars.

No, because Star Wars was actually good.



Also, Eragon is only partly Star Wars. It's also Lord of the Rings flavored.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Mead posted...

A freaking QTE sex event? Easily one of the cringiest ass things I have ever encountered in a video game

You should probably never play a David Cage game.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Revelation34 posted...

Then the original story would have been completely different. It isn't a Christian work just because they stole it.

You're sort of missing the entire point by a mile.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Revelation34 posted...

I have never read Beowulf that claimed he was descended from Cain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel

Fourth sentence on the page. It's also discussed about a dozen times in other places on the page. It's not a huge plot point in the story, but it's definitely mentioned. Also, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#Biblical_influences

Basically, Beowulf as we know it was put to paper by Anglo-Saxon monks, who wrote it in Old English and adapted it from Germano-Nordic. While doing so, they allowed their own biases to influence what they were writing, and occasionally made references to things that reflected their Christian world-view.

Most modern scholars accept that those elements almost certainly weren't part of the original story, but that's sort of the point.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

90% of the time, videos are the best way to answer questions in games these days, unless a Wiki exists for that game that contains the info you need.

I almost never use the FAQs on this site for any purposes anymore, as every time I try it usually winds up being an exercise in frustration because they never answer the questions I have. And the game forums here or on places like Reddit are even worse, because 30+ people will fall over themselves to answer questions you didn't ask, offer advice you have no interest in, or insult you for asking the question in the first place, yet no one will bother to answer the question you actually asked.

Even if you wind up having to go on YouTube and have to skim your way through a video to the point you need, you're usually still better off doing that trying to sift through everything else.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

LusterSoldier posted...

That poll option is Allen forgetting to change the year from the same poll we had at the end of 2017.

More like Allen not actually giving a shit and mostly just going through the motions to keep his job.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

It's not really a "white" person thing. It's pretty well established that people who tend to eat a lot of meat and dairy tend to have more sour-smelling sweat than people who are mostly vegetarian, and vegetarians will tend to notice the difference in smell if you're overly pungent.

It wound up being seen as more of a cultural thing in Asia because those tend to be cultures where dairy consumption is limited (due to genetic inability to properly process it - lactose intolerance is at its worst in Asia, and least common in people from northern Europe) and where meat tends to be more fish or poultry than red meat. When meeting Europeans for the first time (in a time period where basic hygiene was relatively limited and Europeans were worse than most), the difference was very noticable.

At this point, it's probably more traditional cultural biases than it is anything those people have specifically encountered themselves.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

....so uniforms?

I never actually disputed the idea of wearing uniforms. I objected to the idea of sports-style uniforms as opposed to utilitarian-style military uniforms. And pointed out that it was a poor analogy in the first place.

There are plenty of professions in the real world that wear uniforms. Most of them don't involve putting people in flashy day-glo outfits to appeal to an audience. The closest military really comes to that is when you see soldiers in "dress uniform" (which isn't what they wear in combat), and even that tends to be more sedate and staid than the usual clashing colors and logos of sports teams.

The X-Men aren't a sports team. They also aren't janitors, fast food cashiers, flight attendants, or anyone else who wears a uniform. They aren't even wearing uniforms in a private school sense (in spite of being a private school). They're essentially a private military, and wear their uniforms for the same reason militaries wear them, for both identification and team-building purposes, but also for the utilitarian aspects of military gear. They're more or less literally soldiers in Xavier's private war (something that gets brought up constantly in more modern stories). They are covert operatives, which means attention-drawing costumes are pretty much the LAST thing they should be wearing.

They're not even really like the Fantastic Four, where they're wearing deliberately flashy outfits for PR purposes (at least not in the movie version, which is what we're talking about). Nor can they really fall back on the usual comic excuse (ie, there are costumed heroes in the universe, therefore the idea of costumed heroes is normalized), because they're essentially the only heroes with powers in their universe.

So at most, I could theoretically justify something like the matching yellow spandex outfits as "training uniforms" students wear in the Danger Room or when in more physical classes, sort of like modern school gym uniforms. But it would still be kind of weird for academic classes, and definitely bad for the adults who are running black-ops missions where they're literally having their psychic members blur the memories of anyone who sees them. Standing out is pretty much the LAST thing they want to do.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zikten posted...

my theory is they were an oral tradition and never written down, in a pagan culture. and then Christianity came and the stories were so loved they got edited to be christian and then finally written down

My theory is that I'm actually the child of an ancient divine space being and destined to rule the world as your benevolent god-king, but strangely, no one else seems to believe it because there's absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever, and a fair amount of evidence that would seem to suggest otherwise.

The problem is that if you're going to make assertions you can't just go with them because you think it's a neat idea or that it's aesthetically pleasing, it has to be supported by SOME form of evidence to suggest it might be true. And no, "there's no evidence that says it CAN'T be true!" is not evidence.

And nearly everything we know about Arthur is that that simply isn't the case. At BEST, we can say that some stories about Arthur started out as stories about someone ELSE (like Fergus mac Roy having the sword Caladbolg, which is often assumed to have evolved over time into Excalibur), and Arthur sort of got grafted into them. And that the main corpus of what we think of as "Arthurian myth" has a lot of elements of other stories that sort of got pulled in over time (like stories about Gawain or the Welsh Owain likely pre-dating Arthur entirely). But Arthur himself as a distinct concept really doesn't exist until post 500 AD or so.

I went through a huge Arthur kick as a teenager - I did a TON of research into this kind of shit.



Zikten posted...

I read once about how there might be a pagan origin to the quest of the holy grail, except it was a quest for a magic cauldron or something.

What you're thinking of is probably this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branwen#Her_story

Though it might also be one of the cauldrons from these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Treasures_of_the_Tuatha_D%C3%A9_Danann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Treasures_of_the_Island_of_Britain

There were a number of cauldrons in Irish and Welsh mythology, and a lot of people like to assume that those influenced later Arthurian stories about the Grail. But the key thing to remember is that the Grail aspects of Arthurian myth came in VERY late - they were more influenced by stories from France than they were native to the British Isles, and they were deliberately incorporated into the narrative hundreds of years after it had originally been documented. So it's something of a spurious connection at best.

If you're actually interested in pre-Arthurian folklore of Britain that likely inspired some of the earlier Arthurian stories (ie, a lot of the ones involving errant knights fighting against monsters or evil knights and rescuing maidens), you should probably start with the Mabinogion.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

Not to mention that Arthurian legends have rather explicitly referenced Christianity at times, which would be a hard thing to do if it preceded it.

Not really. Arthur stories explicitly picked up tons of elements along the way (like Lancelot coming into the story hundreds of years later via French retellings of the story, or the concept of medieval "chivalry" being grafted on centuries later making the stories anachronistic as fuck).

The Christian elements of Arthur's story are mostly later additions, in the same way that most Christian references in Beowulf (like Grendel being descended from Cain) were blatantly added later but were completely absent from the original story.



Revelation34 posted...

They would have been too far away to take away from Greek or Egyptian mythology. It was independently developed

British Celts and Greeks were fully aware of each other long before either Jesus or Arthur would have existed. Bronze Age civilization was a lot more connected than most people today realize, and there were established trade links that were tied to the tin mines in Britain.

The term "Celt" (or "Keltoi") itself is a Greek word, that predates the earliest references to Jesus by about 600 years, and the earliest references to Arthur by about 1400 years.

So yes, they could easily be influenced by similar sources.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Cannonball Run


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I can safely say that, in the span of almost 42 years of life, I have watched zero college football games. And this trend is likely to continue.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Watership Down is about rabbits.

And deep, abiding childhood trauma.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Black_Crusher posted...

You see that guy though? That'd probably be a downgrade.

Maybe he wants a downgrade. After a while it must get tough having sex if your dick is as big as her arm.

Hell, maybe that's why he's so set on wiping out half the universe. If he'd just get laid he'd lose interest.



And let's be honest, that pretty much IS his motivation in the comic anyway. He just wants to sex up Death herself. And seriously, why wouldn't you?

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/9/9c/Death_%28Earth-616%29_from_Thanos_Vol_2_4_001.jpg

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/2/2a/Thanos_%28Earth-616%29_and_Death_%28Earth-616%29_from_Annihilation_Vol_1_6_001.jpg

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/08/Thanos-Death-Marvel-Comics.jpg


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Zikten posted...

plus its not exactly kept using. this isn't just a king arthur story, it's a reincarnated king arthur story, which is more rare. I actually like that concept. so I am interested in this movie. most king arthur stories are set in the past about the original king arthur. it's rare to have a story about his return, which is actually part of the legend btw.

yes, but he returns as an adult still, not as a child or a reincarnation

And to be fair, having him reincarnate isn't even a new theme either, as it's been done multiple times before as well.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I thought your topic title said "Got Scorch".


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I just mentioned old-school Napster and mash-up songs in another topic, so now I'm going to post this here:




---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

green dragon posted...

Legit kinda surprised PO dropped that reference

I was young once too, you know.

Well, younger, anyway. I was 23 when that song came out. And I actually like a fair bit of Eminem (I even like a few D-12 songs).

Though I also like this:





(That was actually one of the first few songs I ever downloaded on Napster back when it was still free - I've always kind of enjoyed mash-ups that combine to really diametrically opposed songs and somehow work out really well.)


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

WellKnownNomad posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell records!

I don't think he's said the n word in his movies either

...







...



---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

quigonzel posted...

I just figured the wielder of the gauntlet is impervious to its effects.

Impervious to the backlash and feedback of its effects, but it doesn't render him completely immune to its power in any way.

Like, if he wanted to wish himself a 14" penis, he totally could.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

With nuts!!

Came in to say this.







~leaves~


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Dikitain posted...

If anything, the popularity of Punisher in the 70's is what led to the oversaturation of him in the 80's and the complete abortion that was Punisher in the 90's. He didn't even start showing up in Captain America and Daredevil until the early 80's. Then Marvel decided to just go nuts and put him everywhere.

He didn't even get his first comic series until 1986, and his "oversaturation" was very much a product of the 90s.

As for the 70s, he was originally created as a paper-thin rip-off of a popular book character (the Mack Bolan "Executioner" novels that were very popular in the 70s), and only ever really guest-starred in Spider-Man (as a blatant antagonist readers were NOT meant to sympathize with) for the first six years. He appeared all of maybe a half-dozen times in those six years, at no point a hero, at no point a character the audience really cared about at all (at least not in a positive sense).

His first appearance as an antagonist in Daredevil and Captain America WAS in 1980, true, but he didn't really become popular - with readers wanting to see more of him as an actual protagonist or outright hero - until 84-85 or so (keeping in mind that, up to this point, he'd still only been in like a dozen stories, tops).

The 80s action movie boom you yourself already mentioned and the rise of the ultra-masculine action hero who shoots all the bad guys was a large part of what helped propel the Punisher into popularity in the first place. Much like Wolverine, he owes almost ALL of his later success and popularity to the 80s, not the 70s.

Almost the entirety of what makes the Punisher a character that people know or care about in any way comes from the 80s. Even whatever stories you might like from later periods only exist because of the groundwork laid in the 80s.

If all anyone knew about the character was what was directly established in the 1970s and nothing else, he'd be about on par with the Rocket Racer or Big Wheel in terms of recognizability or popularity.



Dikitain posted...

And that is the problem: People think of it only as a Marvel movie. Think of it like just a typical 80's action film and it is pretty fun, not that far removed from something like Cobra, Commando, or Predator.

Because it WAS essentially a Marvel movie. Or, at least, a movie deliberately attempting to base its identity on the existing Marvel character and its popularity, in order to cash in on that character. Like it or not, it was a comic book movie, and it failed spectacularly at being one.

But even as stereotypical "80s action movie", it was still a relatively bad movie. It was produced by New World Pictures (a studio notorious for terrible B-movies and exploitation films), and its parent company are actually the ones who bought Marvel in the mid-80s, and basically helped drive it into near-bankruptcy in the late 80s and 90s before they sold it off to even worse masters. It's the sort of movie people get together and watch to make fun of, not one that anyone would enjoy unironically in the same way people enjoyed Cobra or Commando or Rambo or even Death Wish.

Again, it was a movie fans were going to hate from the very start, but which also wasn't even remotely going to win over non fans.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Revelation34 posted...

Zikten posted...

Maybe in ancient prechristian versions of the story he could almost be

I'm pretty sure the legend existed after Christianity though.

The concept of the "sleeping god" or "the king under the mountain" existed before Christianity, though, at least in archetype. Part of why some people assume that the premise of Jesus as a god who dies but later returns to redeem was just stolen from earlier folklore or mythology. Something like 90% of early Christianity is basically just a Greek mystery cult crudely bolted on to existing Jewish history and cosmology.

So it's distinctly possible that Arthur wasn't strictly a echo of Jesus, as much as both were borrowing from the same (or similar) original sources.



Zikten posted...

Arthur legends predate Christianity.

That would be somewhat difficult, since Arthur was almost certainly born hundreds of years after Jesus, assuming both men were real at all.

The first documented reference to Arthur anywhere in existing knowledge wasn't until 900 AD or so. And nearly every scholar who assumes he was real at all tend to place him somewhere around 400-450 AD in Roman England. Where he would literally have been raised as a Christian himself.

The alternative view would be that he actually descends from unrelated Welsh mythology, but that would likely place him even later in the timeline.

There's pretty much no sane or rational scholar who would ever make the claim that any story specifically about Arthur predates 1 AD. At best, you could argue that Arthur represents specific folkloric archetypes that existed before then, but that's not really the same thing.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Veedrock- posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Not how percentage chance works, but ok.

Meaning what?

To be fair, if he killed 50% of every existing population and he was currently 100% of his own population, it would have to kick into complicated rules lawyering, where either there'd still be a 50-50 chance he'd die, or half of his body would die, or something.

But which again, only really applies if he left himself in the potential pool, or that he had no real control over the process, which doesn't seem to be the case. The entire process was powered by intent, and presumably at least part of his intent was that he'd survive the process to see the successful conclusion of his life's work.

He didn't have to magic genie wish what he wanted with careful wording, he apparently wordlessly wished for exactly what he wanted and then snapped his fingers to symbolically trigger it (realistically, he shouldn't necessarily even have needed to do that specifically, since he already showed previously that he could use the powers of the stones he had as long as his hand was entirely free - the gestures were almost more psychosomatic than mandatory). So even a subconscious wish to survive or exclude himself would give him a 100% chance of survival.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

WastelandCowboy posted...

You could say that hes the one making the claim that Im exaggerating and Im the one disputing it.

Except no, that would be the opposite of true.

If someone disputes a claim you're making, you can't go "Oh yeah? Well I dispute your disputation, so now burden of proof is on you! I'm rubber and you're glue, no take backsies!"



WastelandCowboy posted...

Just for shits and giggles, as I'm being asked to defend this claim even though anyone can just Google it.

If you can't be bothered to defend your own position, why should anyone else care what you think?

I don't even necessarily disagree with your initial premise, but "You can go look it up for yourself" is rarely a valid defense of any position. If you care enough to make an assertion to people who never asked for your opinion in the first place, you're generally expected to support and defend said assertion. Because you're essentially asking other people to care, and you don't really accomplish that by telling other people to do unnecessary homework.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

No.

Lodoss is based on a campaign played in the Sword World RPG, which was a Japanese version of D&D.

Sword Art is just a blatant shitty rip-off of .hack.

Sword World =/= Sword Art.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

WastelandCowboy posted...

Veedrock- posted...

You're exaggerating.

Am I? Prove it.

Generally, burden of proof is on those making a claim, not those disputing it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zangulus posted...

You can. You can literally go into places and say "here's my prescription, I want a pair of glasses.". They will actually do this.

This.

Also, in a lot of places, you can even just hand them your old glasses, and they can basically scan them to see what the prescription is for them, and then just duplicate it.

But it's also worth noting that you probably shouldn't do this, even if you think your prescription hasn't changed, because it may have. And you should get checked to make sure you have the best possible prescription because otherwise you can strain your eyes.

I actually had a situation where my old pair of glasses had shifted so they didn't sit on my face right, and my prescription apparently shifted to match as my eyes got used to the new positioning. But then when I went and got new glasses, I just used my old prescription. And then I wound up having weird motion sickness issues and trouble focusing, which turned out to be because my prescription wasn't actually the same, and it became a problem when the new glasses sat on my nose differently and the angle wasn't quite right.

I wouldn't say you need to get your eyes checked every new for new glasses (though once you get older you might want to get checked at LEAST once a year for cataracts and glaucoma, or things like detached retina or other issues), but if you're going to get new glasses, you definitely should get your eyes checked to get a new, accurate prescription for them.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Oh, and I just remembered that, when Dazzler was on the team, literally everyone in the world knew she was Alison Blaire. So if you're at your local bar when famous pop-singer Alison Blaire comes walking in with a woman with a white streak in her brown hair (who looks exactly like that "Rogue" person), someone covered in blue fur, and a really short dude (who looks to have the same height and build as that "Wolverine" guy - and both of whom are the only people on Earth who say "bub" a lot), all pretense of secret identity kind of takes a steaming dump.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

More importantly, they live in a universe where they're wanted vigilantes worried about being exposed... and yet fucking nobody wears a mask or other headgear to obscure the face. If I was going hero or villain, the first thing I'd do is get a mask.

I'd grant you that, but that's more a problem with Hollywood than anything that we're ever going to see fixed in our lifetimes. Hollywood can't even put Peter Parker in a mask or Iron Man in a helmet without coming up with ways to keep showing their faces. If you're going to hire a famous actor, you want to show their face.

Though - and I was actually thinking about this myself not too long ago in a different context - the X-Men almost NEVER hide their real identities in the comics. The original team did (most of them wore masks, Iceman always covered his face with ice, etc), but once you get to the "All-New, All-Different" era, pretty much the only person on the entire team who wears a mask is Wolverine (and later Shadowcat - though she almost never wears it anymore, and Wolverine doesn't wear his half the time either). Sure, Colossus turns into metal and Nightcrawler had a hologram generator that could make him look like a normal human (that he used for all of like four issues before he decided he was just going to be himself, because "mutant pride"), but almost all of them are constantly showing their faces. In public. Often on camera.

Nor does it really help that, in spite of the fact that they have codenames, they're just as likely to use someone's real name as they are their codename while in the middle of a pitched battle with enemies who can easily hear them. People call Shadowcat "Kitty" constantly, they'll call Nightcrawler "Kurt" (though arguably any hope of hiding his identity is pretty much shot regardless), people tend to call Iceman "Bobby" more than they do Iceman, etc. The New Mutants are actually worse about this than the X-Men are (they almost NEVER use their codenames), though to their credit at least some of New Mutants bother wearing masks as part of their costumes.

It gets worse when you're talking about people like Bishop (who has a blatant face tattoo) or Cable (with a glowing cybernetic eye), though to their credit they're also the characters least likely to ever appear anywhere in public EXCEPT when on missions. But all the other X-Men and New Mutants basically just hang out in town just down the road from their school without hiding their identities in any way.

In other words, even in the past when technology was limited it should have taken most villains about 20 minutes to find out where the X-Men lived (and that's without even getting into the fact that the X-Men are led by "Professor X", a bald man in a wheelchair, who looks suspiciously like Professor Xavier, the bald man in a wheelchair who runs that school for "special" students). In the era of cell phone cameras and Internet searches, pretty much everyone on Earth should know exactly who they are and where to find them.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

It's not about being flashy, it's about being consistent. They come from a universe where sports teams have uniforms. It's the same concept.

It really isn't. Because they're not a sports team. That's basically like saying that, because cheerleading teams exist in the real world, the US military should wear mini-skirts and pom-poms into combat, and no one should think that's a weird idea at all if you made a movie where that happened.

The X-Men are essentially a paramilitary black-ops team. If anything, they should be wearing full-on SWAT gear or other ballistic outfits, preferably with color schemes chosen for each mission to blend in (black or very dark blue for night, green camo for forest or jungle, white for snow, tan for desert, etc). For social dynamic purposes (ie, trying to talk your way into a crime scene past a suspicious security guard) they should probably look as "official" or "military" as possible, not like a PR crayon explosion (ie, the motivation behind Captain America's costume). There really is very little logic for wearing over-the-top comic-book style outfits in any universe that doesn't HAVE public costumed heroes, and in which you're trying to remain somewhat covert and undercover.

The only real exceptions you should have are where there's a logical reason for divergence. Like Havok having to wear a special suit to regulate his power, or Storm wanting to wear something lighter and with extra cloth so she can use it to fly, or Cyclops needing his visor. Because even more so than in the comics, we're emphasizing that these people are a TEAM, not a collection of individual heroes (which is what the X-Men sort of evolved into, during the periods where everyone had their own unique costume that didn't match anyone else).

An argument could be made that a hypothetical training team of younger mutants (New Mutants, if you will) should wear matching uniforms that might lean more towards school uniform look than tactical operator, but those students should never be leaving the school grounds to have "adventures" in the first place, and if they do they should change into more practical gear instead. That's something that actually happened in the comics - the New Mutants mostly wore the older yellow/black school uniforms, but when they snuck out out to do hero things they changed into their actual "hero" costumes (which they changed at least 3-4 times over the years, which is why most of them don't really have "iconic" looks like the X-Men tend to.

Though in the New Mutants' case, the other problem is that, other than their original "hero" outfits, every look they go for is almost painfully tied to the time period they got them in, which means they age VERY poorly almost immediately. Most of their 1980s outfits still look kind of nice today, but their 90's costumes and X-Force costumes kind of look absolutely terrible for all of them.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Dikitain posted...

Plus 80's Punisher sucked in the comics so it is a good thing they don't follow the source material.

80's Punisher is pretty much the only reason anyone even remotely gives a single solitary shit about the Punisher as a character at all.

70's Punisher was literally just an underdeveloped Spider-Man antagonist (if not outright villain) who occasionally guested in Daredevil to rain on his parade as well. And post 80's Punisher has mostly been a succession of batshit insane and outright stupid storylines that almost no one likes, like the time when he died and became an angel to fight demons, or the time when he died and became Frankenstein, or the time where he became a black man to hide from people. Oh, or the time he became Ghost Rider.

And no, slavishly following the source material for something isn't entirely necessary as long as you put out a good story of your own that retains the spirit of the source material. But honestly, when you shit out a low-budget movie that existing fans of the character almost universally loathe and people who aren't fans of the character also think is kind of stupid and relatively bad, you've pretty much failed across the entire board.

There's a reason why the Punisher movie basically became the go-to shorthand argument for "Marvel can't make good films" for about 15 years straight (even more so than the terrible Captain America film). It basically took the success of Blade, X-Men, AND Spider-Man before Marvel started to shake off the stink.

I've been a comic fan for like 33 years, and I've literally never met a single person who liked that film unironically.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Lokarin posted...

Basically, can you exploit elemental weaknesses?

That was never really a core premise of "magic" until D&D did it, and then JRPGs stole all their ideas from D&D and helped perpetuate it in video game circles.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

InfestedAdam posted...

Strange coulda let Stark die and possibly keep the Time Stone hidden.

Almost certainly not.

By that point, Strange had already done his "I've scanned 14 million different possible scenarios and we lose in all of them but one" thing. The implication is that Stark basically HAS to be alive in order for them to win - Strange isn't making an emotionally-motivated choice to save a life at the cost of potentially losing, he's setting "the endgame" (his words) into motion, by making the only decision that can possibly lead to success.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Lokarin posted...

Dango, but y'know there's a diff between Magic and Psionics... Mass Effect uses Psionics

I don't disagree, but that's an entirely different argument than the one you started with and I was disputing.

The real problem is that too many stories treat magic like science while others treat science like magic, so there's a really murky middle ground between the two that can make it hard to separate the two.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I could only watch the trailer long enough for it to remind me of The Seeker. At which point I shuddered like some dark atrocity had been committed and reflexively turned the trailer off before I started projectile vomiting.

It might not actually be like what I assume it is now, but I'm never going to know or care.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family