Lurker > Zanzenburger

MrMallard posted...

Sure, but Metroid games are notoriously rare. The fact that the one fan-hyping title that Nintendo has announced in the past 9 years, in a subseries that occurs in the interim between mainline Metroid titles, took so long that they released a new title in the mainline series? The first sequel in 19 years, compared to the first sequel in 14/5 years (if you count Federation Force as an installment in the Metroid franchise)? That's pretty wild.

I'm just glad we are getting two Metroid games period. This reminds me of the early 2000's when we got Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion around the same time. Double the hype.

Now we can enjoy Metroid 5 while still looking forward to Metroid Prime 4 hopefully in the next year or two.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

GiftedACIII posted...

This. I feel attitudes like TC's is less about horror, but more like wanting a typical adventure video game with a horror setting.

Meanwhile, sections where you can only run and hide are scary even in family friendly games like Hat in Time.

Agreed. The Metroid games that have sections where you are powerless against the enemy (such as Zero Mission and Fusion) are some of the most memorable sections in those games. They can be fun when incorporated right.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Alpha218 posted...

Damn this game is gonna be great. So hyped!

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Did anyone catch the super creepy SA-X with the soulless eyes screencap in that teaser trailer. There's a lot to unpack in those last 5 seconds of the teaser.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

This is pretty exciting.

These Metroid reports they are releasing show that this is a pretty ambitious game from both a story and gameplay perspective.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

refmon posted...

Leslie Knope is incredibly annoying and she ends up almost never being in the wrong.

It's great with Michael since the show and characters constantly shit on him

Leslie is wrong a lot of the time and the show (and the characters) will always let her know it. Sometimes her impulsive decisions have gotten her in trouble and kept her from getting something she wanted. Even times when she does the right thing she doesn't get the thing she wants.

And besides her own staff, most people in and around Pawnee treat her like dirt.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

There is a disconnect between what various parties want colleges and universities to be.

Administrators want them to be a well-run business that makes them look good to the board of trustees and get them promoted.
Faculty want them to be institutions that advance knowledge through research and scholarship, while also training future researchers and scholars.
Student Affairs personnel want them to be vehicles for social and economic equity among populations, allowing for even the poorest and most-marginalized a shot at rising the economic latter.
Employers want them to be job training centers that pop out employees ready to the specific work they need done and without hand-holding.
Politicians want them to make them look good, therefore matching whatever the current hot topic of the week is at the national scale and changing them to meet their political party's needs.
Donors want them to simply be trophies and vehicles for their own desires, on which to put their names on buildings and benches and give them a fun place to visit and show their friends.
And students want them to serve as the gatekeepers for jobs, basically getting them the job of their dreams no matter how it's done.

When so many different groups have a different idea of what a college or university is supposed to be, then the focus is lost and they try to be everything to all people and fail.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Yes, I was never able to get into The Office the way that I got into Parks and Rec. The characters in Parks and Rec are just so much more likeable which makes you want to root for them. Most people in The Office are unlikeable characters, and not in a fun way like in Always Sunny or Schitt's Creek.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I think Little Nightmares did this okay. Unlike some of the other games mentioned here, it makes sense that the character can't fight back since every enemy is giant (or a poisonous creature).

Even in the DLC when they add a "defense" element to it, it's extremely limited and doesn't take away from the creepiness factor. I'd argue it adds to it.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Metroid: Zero Mission and Metroid Fusion are only available on Wii U e-shop. Great if you want to play in preparation for Dread.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

When I used to live in one, it was $68 a month.

Don't live in any now fortunately.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I am impressed with Ring Fit Adventure. It is well worth it as it is an amazing game. I can't wait for the eventual RFA2.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

masterpug53 posted...

Pretty spot-on, honestly. I absolutely adored Kill Bill for a time, but even during its heydey I found myself feeling that, outside of a couple key emotional scenes, the Bride is simply unrelatable in general; and I imagine that goes doubly for female audience members. I think her biggest problem is that the vast majority of her dialogue falls into that sort of A New Hope-style 'looks good on paper but sounds back when spoken' overworked writing. I always thought it was sort of a funny meta-commentary when, towards the ends of part 2, she poses a particularly stilted line to Bill and, in his half-drunk state, he asks something like 'I'm sorry...was that supposed to be a question?'

I saw this for the first time recently and I'm finding it hard to disagree. Upon retrospect, I think one of the things that sets it apart is that the girls' victory was made better by the fact that the writers didn't feel the need to knock down the boy characters by making them all stupid and unlikeable (Ghostbusters 2016 immediately springs to mind as a bad example of this); the boys were great, but the girls were greater, and it felt like the competition and subsequent victory was genuinely earned.

Not only that, but the movie subverted that trope where the new girl comes in and takes down the popular, egotistical, coercive ringleader by having Beca and Aubrey work through their differences and lift each other up rather than having Beca replace Aubrey and run her out of the group as other movies of these types tend to do. That plot point really surprised and impressed me.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Whitney in Pokemon Gold and Silver.

Boost Guardian in Metroid Prime 2.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Matilda is doing great as far as I remember.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

This is a strange critique. I'm not going to go off on the "it's children's movies" rant that people tend to go on because someone decides to dissect a children's series, but I do think this is a rather odd film franchise to nitpick.

The franchise from the beginning was bizarre and surreal with its plot. I can see what this review is saying, but what more exactly does it want? I think the first film dealt with the initial plot rather well. The initial reluctance of leaving the safe confines of home is changed by the experience of a whole new world. I think it makes sense that they choose to stay and leave their old world behind.

The reviews for 2 and 3 also don't make sense. The fact that all four of them are given something to do is a strength of 2, not a deficit. The fact that the plots eventually tie together is even better, as some side plots just disappear into obscurity in kids' movies. And the story being told is touching, and I think the climax of the film really hits home, starting from the campsite all the way to the volcano.

And the chaotic-ness of 3 is the point. It just feels like a natural progression of the series to amp up the chaos that was seen in 1 or 2. Again, I'm not really sure what this review would have wanted from a third movie other than just not exist at all. There was really nowhere else for the series plot to go so they essentially made their own "Shrek 4", a story that didn't need to be told but was serviceable for what it was. My only nitpick in this movie is that two of the four characters were given very little to do in this movie and their "plot" was resolved almost immediately.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

PrideOfLion posted...

Season 1 is basically a perfect season. It could have been a mini series and had a perfect run off they had wanted it
Season 2 is still better than most television but it doesn't hit the highs as well as season 1. It also changes up the premise slightly so if that was a big draw for you then that could be a miss. That being said it's still great
Season 3 is still good but really benefits from binge watching. Week to week didn't help but overall still enjoyable. I'd say the premise shifts even more away from the first season so that can be a struggle for a lot of people

I really like it and it is worth a rewatch because you'll catch and appreciate more

I'm on Season 2 so it's interesting to see the changes.

Overall, though, I feel like the premise would have to change just based on what it is. The Season 1 premise would get old real fast if it stayed the same more than one season. It's like those shows that have all these big things happen only to go back to the status quo and you feel like no plot progress has been made.

I'm enjoying the show so far. Disappointed that it seems S2 and S3 are overall a step down. But I guess we'll see.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

FarFromFields posted...

Not a mild spoiler imo

Fair enough. I figured no one would get it without the context but I deleted it just to be safe.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I actually just binged S1 the last two weeks. I think I'm actually on S2 E4 lol.

It's pretty neat. The philosophical elements are great, really making you question what it means to be alive. It's kind of like Bicentennial Man in a way.

The greatest part of the show, though, is how they treat time. The fact that the robots don't age and repeat the same daily cycles day after day makes for some really interesting story-telling ideas and twists, particularly when *mild spoilers* you watch scenes that you think take place in the same week, but actually take place decades apart but are spliced together in such a way that you think it's all happening at the same time.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

damn dude is this your first time watching the olympics?

lol I'm not watching the Olympics.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

opopopza posted...

The starting lines are staggered to make up the distance.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The starting positions are different to offset the length differential.

*Slaps head*

Of course! I've seen that but I guess I never made the connection. Thanks!

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I've always been curious how the distances are the same on the inside of the track compared to the outside. Wouldn't the inner track undoubtedly be shorter length-wise than the outer track due to less surface space running overall? Kinda like the rings on the inner circle of a target are shorter in distance than the rings on the outer circle of that target?

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

There are conventional loans that can allow as low as 3% down. There are USDA loans and VA loans that allow as low as 0% down. And FHA loans, as mentioned, with 3.5% down. The challenge is finding out which loans you qualify for based on the region you are buying, your credit score, your debts, your income, the type of house, the condition of the house, and the lot size.

The bare-bones house-buying process:

• Find the right loan for you
• Get preapproved
• Shop for a house within your preapproved price range
• Make an attractive offer
• Submit paperwork for actual loan approval (this is a HUGE part of it involving pay stubs, tax statements, proof of secondary income, credit reports, assets list, bank statements, etc)
• Get home inspection
• Get home appraised
• Seller fixes issues found in inspection and/or appraisal or lowers house price
• Shop for housing insurance
• Do a title search on property for liens
• Pay the "good faith" fee deposit (necessary in competitive markets)
• Pay the down payment based on loan terms
• Set up escrow account and pay initial setup fees
• Get a survey completed on the property
• Do a final house walkthrough
• Sign all the paperwork at closing
• Set up electricity, water, internet, etc.
• Move in

There can be additional steps required if there are any issues above, such as the house appraising for less than the selling price. Now your preapproval purchase amount could be lowered which would require you to either pay a higher down payment, or renegotiate a lower house price with the owner. That's just one example.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

KTG2 posted...

I just don't get it. You can disagree with the moratorium, I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. But to seem so hyped about this much potential human suffering is just really fucked up.

People who are suffering often feel that other people's suffering makes it more fair and makes them feel better about themselves. "If I have to suffer, you have to suffer" type of mindset.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

My wife and I were business partners for a while with a shared joint business email. Does that count?

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Trill__Cosby posted...

The problem is if those people are that financially stable they need to just save up a damn down payment to put on a house like everybody else instead of going for this goofy rent to own stuff

I can see why people would do it if they don't want to commit. Consider these two scenarios for someone who is living in a city where they don't know if they'll want to stay.

A) Rent a place for two years, decide they like the area; put a down payment towards the purchase of a house. Two years of rent are gone.
B) Rent a place for two years under a rent-to-own agreement, decide they like the area. Continue making the rent-to-own payments as the two years already counted towards the house purchase. Apply for a mortgage and pay the rest off.

Now, let's assume a person lives in an area for a year before moving out for a job or whatever.
A) If they immediately buy a house and then move in a year, they will have huge tax implications when they sell, plus paying two sets of closing costs in a year, and deal with the risk of a poor seller's market. House-buying isn't recommended if you don't plan to stay a few years.
B) If they rent-to-own and decide to leave, then they just leave and don't keep the property. It would be the equivalent of just renting, with the added benefit that the rent payments could have counted towards the house purchase if they chose to stay. But they don't really lose anything by leaving that they wouldn't have lost in a straight renting agreement.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

In my experience, rent-to-own homes isn't very common. I did it once with a commercial property. The owner and I made an agreement where my rent would go towards purchasing the building. If I closed down the building or moved away before paying it off, then they got to keep the building and sell it and the rent I've paid would just be rent. There was really no downside. I was already paying rent. Owning the building would be a bonus if I paid long enough. I eventually paid off the building and sold it like a few months later at double the price lol.

Rent-to-own property is more common, like TVs and furniture. This is traditionally an option for people with bad credit who can't get traditional financing or a credit card. It's better than layaway as they get to enjoy usage of the item in question while they pay it off.

But yes, the high risk involved with running a rent-to-own business results in high usage fees and a strict, zero-tolerance policy. Most people that use the business don't know what they are getting into and tend to lose out on it. But it does work for a certain subset of the population that can pay the monthly bill every month.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I love my Alolan Sandslash.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

bigblu89 posted...

As a huge Chappelle fan, Granny dunking and yelling "Game. Blouses." made me legit LOL.

Honestly, the movie was full of hilarious quips, and they weren't even all WB-reference-related. I think the Tunes were incorporated well for the amount of screentime they had. Most of them got a hilarious moment. Even freaking Sylvester got the funniest joke in the whole damn movie.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

CableZL posted...

I watched it and thought it was funny. I enjoyed it.

This. People are overreacting to this movie.

It was decent, funny, and entertaining. But nothing mindblowing. Some jokes hit really well.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I wouldn't say it's strictly a redditor problem. Self-deprecating humor is everywhere. I don't quite get it, honestly. You keep jokingly putting yourself down in public and you are eventually prone to believe it. I've seen it firsthand with family members who spend way too much time joking about their faults excessively and have seen their confidence in themselves fall over time.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Turbam posted...

Colosseum was so god damn good.

That game made some of my greatest memories. I still remember my Forretress beasting through that game.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

No_U_L7 posted...

For the sake of this discussion, they are counted as suburbs

Think of it as city/other

In this case, then "other" for me. I live inside a nature preserve with no other houses within 10 miles from me.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

No_U_L7 posted...

These are suburbs

https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-rural-and-urban-and-suburban/

The difference between rural, urban and suburban areas is that rural areas are generally open and spread out with a small population while the suburban areas are residential areas with a larger population than rural areas whereas the urban area is one with a high population for both living and working.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I can't imagine a legitimate reason there's a rule banning women from wearing shorts playing volleyball that wouldn't also apply to men.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

One issue is that this creates an unnecessary, never-ending cycle.

-Rich person donates money to food and housing charity
-Charity feeds and houses poor families
-Families are poor due to low wages paid by rich person's company
-Meanwhile rich person gets tax credits from the donation that helps with profits

It's an oversimplification, but if the rich person would just pay the family a decent wage, many of these charities won't be needed as there will be less people needing help

As it stands, we spend so much of our collective money on charities and government social programs caused by the underemployment and under-paying of citizens and an ever-increasing cost of living.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

unnamedsoldier posted...

People who are gonna break the law will break it regardless.

Not necessarily. There are people who don't break the law simply because they fear the consequences and don't think they can get away with it. Remove the "barrier" of the law and you'd be surprised how many people are more willing to do unethical things.

Plus there's a peer pressure mentality. If a day like this truly existed, you have two options: you are a "taker" or you are a "giver". Left with those two choices, I can see people choose to be a "taker" so they don't get victimized as a "giver", whether that be giver of their money, their possessions, or their life.

With all that being said, I do think that crimes would still happen outside of the purge. I don't think having one day of the year to do what you want to "get it out of your system" as most crime is done out of necessity. People who are poor on purge day will still be poor outside of purge day so crime is inevitable just to survive.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

The most frustrating thing about the whole ordeal is that the majority of people will never know what really happened. Sure, the truth eventually got out, but it certainly did not get the same media coverage that the initial "news" got. And why would they? News stations, comedians, and what-have-you don't want to admit they were wrong, so they have no incentive to publicize the correction.

So as it stands, most people will always assume that it was the woman's fault. And even the majority of the small percentage of people that do happen to learn the truth will probably just go "oh" and get on their way.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Nathaniel2018 posted...

no male nurses?

I work with nurse faculty and college staff, which are mostly women. We don't have actual nurses working at the college.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

I work at a nursing college, so like 99% women.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

Garioshi posted...

Suburbs, purely because parking is much, much less of a pain than in urban environments. Parking in DC is a fucking nightmare.

I've lived in an either suburban or rural area for so long that I still get shocked at how bad parking is when I go into the city downtown.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.

krazychao5 posted...

leaning towards this. also, that bowser gimmick wouldn't really work throughout a game. although i did enjoy it for a bit. they could expand on some of the concepts in the game, but that doesn't feel like nintendo

I don't think people are referring to the giant Bowser part of the concept. They are referring to the open world-esque design of the levels, where every Mario level is organically built into the world, with more world access opening up as you get stars/shines/sprites/moons. No hub world, no map, no level select screen. That can work really well if done right.

It's basically if Mario Odyssey and 3D World had a baby.

---

Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy.