Lurker > adjl

NinjaGhosts posted...

I dont mind weapons breaking gives it more variety but understand why people dont like it because it puts them to work

It's more that it's just a tedious chore than a genuine challenge to overcome, at least past the early game where you legitimately have to consider how best to use the few attacks that stick will give you and/or rely on non-weapon attacks (like runes). It's not hard to find a comparable weapon to replace whatever just broke, it's just a bunch of unnecessary menuing and inventory management to maintain a stockpile to use, with periodic farming if you want to use something that doesn't drop readily (like Savage Lynel stuff). It also means any cool new thing you find is only going to be temporary, dramatically limiting its usefulness. It doesn't ruin the game, by any means, but it's definitely not a good system.

That said, depending on exactly how it works, fusion could turn it from a tedious chore into something actually entertaining, so I'm looking forward to seeing how that works.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I'm imagining Carlos ate a bunch of kids off screen lmao

It'd be a waste not to.

keyblader1985 posted...

It's a good idea on paper, but very few studios would be willing to roll the dice on an IP that already failed once.

Indeed. Movies aren't remade to try again, they're remade as low-effort cash-ins on what should be pretty reliably successful (that, or to preserve trademark ownership).

Blightzkrieg posted...

why were there only like 7 kids in her class and sometime's that one kid's cousin

Survival of the fittest.

PK_Spam posted...

Was the Awakening gimmick secretly good in the base game or something

Awakening is extremely powerful in the base game, and many top-tier party compositions aim to maximize its uptime through Resonant Flag and Glittering Melody. It's less good for Guardian Commander, who ostensibly revolves around maximizing its uptime to boost their damage and aggro generation, but in practice they need to have aggro in the first place to activate Awakening with their talent art, so they can pretty quickly end up in a death spiral if somebody else pulls aggro.

In FR, though, as far as I can tell so far (just finished Chapter 3), the only way to get Awakening is from Unity Combos, and it doesn't last long enough to chain it. Maybe that'll change at some point, but for now it does indeed look like Nikol's going to be the stronger tank.

Zareth posted...

No, it probably sounds just as cringe in Japanese. You just aren't a native speaker so it sounds better to YOU. Same thing with voice acting. You've known and heard English all your life, so if it's cringe, it sounds cringe to you.

This is legitimately a major part of me preferring subs to dubs for anime. Cringey dialogue is a lot easier to overlook when I can decide how closely I read it and/or pretend it's a translation issue than it is when I have to listen to every word being said.

I guess it lost its appeal when he didn't get as many people visiting the topics so he could collect data on them. What an odd duck.

captpackrat posted...

That's me after they raised the 11foot8 bridge.

It went from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLH8qvaIFg

To:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpceWrLtWk

I've still seen a few decent crashes on 11'8+8", but raising it has indeed cut down on the number of serious ones (which was kind of the point).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Last I heard, he's back at it, but he has his own board to do it on so he isn't running afoul of the mods so often. That was quite some time ago, though, so he may have given up on that.

That's good to know, not that there was any chance whatsoever of me not playing it.

It's a real testament to how fantastic the base game is that, despite how hyped I am for FR, I genuinely want to finish off NG+ before moving on to it, not just as a self-imposed restriction. Ignoring all the sidequests except Ino's and Masha's is definitely thinnning out the experience a lot (as expected), but I'm still really enjoying going through the story again (second time playing it, third time seeing most of it in context thanks to watching most of Harry McEntire's playthrough) and picking up on hints and connections I missed the first time. 10/10 game, would spend it all with my Noah.

It still wasn't there when I played the game last night, so it might have been a bit later than that. I haven't checked this morning. I'm in no great rush, since I wanted to get through a NG+ playthrough before FR came, and I only just reached the beginning of chapter 6 last night.

I imagine it would be a good time, but I'm realizing that I genuinely don't know what I would call the most moving play I've ever seen.

I kind of doubt it, unless there's a stealth Challenge Mode update that adds some fanservice heroes (which isn't impossible). Future Redeemed seems to be focusing much more on 1/2 fanservice than other Xeno games, Matthew being a blatant Fei expy aside.

There is water on it, so I would say it's wet. It will not, however, be able to make anything else wet until it leaves the water.

pedro45 posted...

Thank you. That's pretty interesting. Europeans seem to handle it best, with middle eastern folks handling it the worst.

Lactose tolerance (past the usual breastfeeding ages, that is) is actually a mutation, the origin of which was somewhere in Europe. As such, areas with a relatively low amount of European lineage will tend to be intolerant.

Ozmose posted...

Pretty simple. Most of them sit in a 600lb safe unless they're going to the range with me. The only one that stays out is my carry gun. They're never unattended.

Then as far as I'm concerned, you're probably good. Maybe throw in some regular mental health checkups to make sure it's still safe for you to own them, but otherwise you're already doing everything I would expect to see mandated by reasonable gun control laws and I wouldn't expect much to change for you beyond maybe having some extra paperwork to fill out.

As much as people like to harp on the "making guns illegal won't stop criminals from getting them" point, the fact of the matter is that virtually every illegal gun was legally purchased at some point. If a gun is owned illegally, it's either because a legal owner sold it illegally or because it was stolen from a legal owner. The former is addressed by a more robust registration and tracking system, allowing any illegal weapons found to be traced back to their last legal owner so that person can held accountable for illegally selling them. The latter is addressed by more robust secure storage requirements, preventing any but the most dedicated thieves from being able to steal and distribute guns (hypothetically, if somebody drove a semi into your house and grabbed your safe with a forklift, they could get your guns, but obviously you can't be expected to defend against something like that) and allowing negligent owners to be held accountable for failing to keep their gun under control.

Toss in more robust background checks on every purchase, mental health screening, and a mandatory waiting period (which helps more with suicide, but also cuts down on impulsive crimes of passion), and you've got what most people mean by "common sense gun control." It's not about banning guns, it's about enacting regulations that help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who would do wrong with them. By the sounds of things, you're already compliant with those sensible control measures and nobody needs to take any action against your guns. That's great. Not everyone is so responsible, though, and that's a major component of the gun violence problem the US has.

Ozmose posted...

Joking aside, I think the greater benefit of the death penalty is that society isn't forced to support the worst of the worst. It makes my stomach turn thinking my hard earned tax dollars are paying for the food and healthcare of some multiple child murderer somewhere.

You've probably ended up putting more tax dollars toward directly murdering children than toward supporting child murderers, given how expensive the military is compared to feeding somebody in prison. More than that, though, life sentences are in fact cheaper than the death penalty, something that's never going to be escapable so long as there's any interest in preventing the execution of innocent people (which there really needs to be), and they're arguably less humane given how soul-suckingly pointless a life in prison is, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

Count_Drachma posted...

The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. That same guy could've been using an axe, machete, or even a bow & arrow.

And guns pretty consistently make that violence worse than it would have been otherwise because they're so much better at killing people. Case in point: If you're going to carry a weapon for everyday self-defense, you're not going to carry an axe, machete, or bow & arrow.

Ozmose posted...

for doing absolutely nothing wrong?

What steps are you taking to ensure that they are never used to commit crimes?

potdnewb posted...

humans have killed many in the name of god but god has never murdered anyone

Did you miss the "in the bible" part of that sentence?

Count_Drachma posted...

But do the children who get aborted make the choice to die or is that choice made for that? That's basically the underlying issue. Either way, a choice is being made for somebody else.

With the key difference that we typically prefer to let sentient individuals make choices for themselves whenever possible, while routinely making choices (including life and death decisions) that affect sub-sentient individuals (including actual infants and toddlers, long past the point where anyone would consider abortion justifiable).

Count_Drachma posted...

And it's weird that you're trying to say stuff like "pro-birth" which is a completely meaningless attempt to reframe the term

It's pretty accurate. Pro-lifers pretty routinely stop caring about the child the moment it's born; their priority is birth above anything else.

Count_Drachma posted...

while not saying "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice."

But pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Hardly anyone is pro-abortion in a general sense. Pro-choice is pro-access to abortion, preserving the freedom for each individual pregnant person to choose for themselves whether they want to go through with that pregnancy. Nobody's trying to increase the number of abortions that happen, only to reduce the number of people forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. All else being equal, that can be expected to result in an increase in the number of abortions that happen, but that's where advocating for measures that actually help to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies come in to, in turn, reduce the number of abortions.

Count_Drachma posted...

I'm not sure he actually did, but continue your silly pigeonholing and reductionism.

As I've said, "people who generalize entire groups of people" is itself a group of people about which he made a generalization. I'm not about to pretend that isn't a bit of facetious pedantry, but it's still quite correct.

BlackScythe0 posted...

This is one of the worst posts I've seen Zeus make. Genuinely.

I've seen him make pretty much the same post in previous discussions on abortion. Also included was "abortion isn't justified following rape because that just creates an extra victim" (paraphrased), which was just all kinds of holy heckbuckets.

At the end of the day, it boils down to the company wanting to have control over their product, which is reasonable on paper but can obviously be taken to abusive extremes. Nintendo tends toward the latter.

captpackrat posted...

Clarence "Billionaire Trips" Thomas has already said the Supreme Court should reconsider Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage), Lawrence v Texas (gay sex), and Griswold v Connecticut (contraceptives). Some GOP members are even wanting to go after Brown v Board of Education (school segregation) and Loving v Virginia (mixed race marriage).

Oh, I don't believe for a second that homosexuality is safe. Just that trans people are even more immediately in the crosshairs.

Accrovideogames posted...

Loopholes are always accidental by definition.

They are, but given the current discourse I'd expect gender dysphoria to become illegal before homosexuality.

Arguably Subnautica, which isn't strictly a horror game, but I don't think I could reasonably say its scariness isn't deliberate.

I don't actually remember what my gross salary is at the moment because I'm acting in a higher position for the next few months, but it's about 36% of my substantive salary. That's splitting a 2-bedroom with my girlfriend, though, and she's currently making about 80% of what I do (though on a contract that ends in August, so that will likely change), so in terms of gross household income it's not that bad.

keyblader1985 posted...

At most I'd like a small reimbursement.

And, in practice, it's not uncommon for newly-implemented gun control measures that require the destruction of certain guns that people already own to include a buyback program.

GGuirao13 posted...

I actually support restricting abortion to extreme cases, like rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother's life.

The maternal mortality rate in the US is almost triple the national murder rate (~17 per 100k vs ~6.5 per 100k). It's up to three times higher than that if the mother isn't white. With the US health care system as it stands, being pregnant at all is endangerment of the mother's life, let alone the question of serious injury.

On top of that, any time you try to restrict abortion by placing criteria on it like that, no matter how good your intentions are, those restrictions will be abused by more gung-ho pro-lifers to deny abortions whenever they can. Ban it after a certain gestational age? You get a bunch of red tape women have to wade through that often takes so long that they end up passing that deadline unless they started the day they got pregnant. Only allow it for rape? If you require an actual rape conviction to qualify, then there's a good chance the baby will be born before the court case is done. Incest? Whoops, that paternity test took too long and now you're past the age limit. Endangerment? We'll just set the threshold of life-threatening risk really high and require doctors to demonstrate that they did everything we believe is possible (which often doesn't reflect what's actually possible, such as that one politician that suggested aborting an ectopic pregnancy should only be legal if doctors tried to transfer it to the uterus first) before allowing it.

I agree with the basic principle of trying to cut down on the number of abortions (virtually everyone does, as much as many pro-lifers would try to paint women as deliberately getting pregnant every week so they can get another drive-through abortion), but restricting access to abortion isn't the way to do that. There's just too much potential for abuse, with disastrous consequences for the mothers. Instead, the focus needs to be on reducing the number of abortions by reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies that happen in the first place. Comprehensive sex ed curricula and birth control subsidies have both been proven to dramatically cut down on the number of accidental pregnancies (one pilot in Colorado for subsidizing IUDs reduced the rate by 40%, which is massive), and improving prenatal care and other supports for new mothers make pregnancy and parenthood safer and less daunting such that fewer women who do accidentally get pregnant end up wanting or needing an abortion. That approach not only does a better job of respecting women's bodily autonomy (the core moral principle of the pro-choice position), it also tends to yield better results in terms of reducing overall abortion rates, cuts down on dangerous DIY approaches, and means you don't have to waste everyone's time, money, and emotional well-being conducting a criminal investigation of every miscarriage, all of which are objective benefits that everyone should be able to agree upon.

Ozmose posted...

Most of the regulations proposed are banning something.

Well, yes. That's what regulations do: They make it illegal to not follow them.

Ozmose posted...

The end result for most of them would be millions of law abiding people being turned into felons with the stroke of a pen,

Any new regulation that required current owners to take action to become compliant with it would inevitably have a grace period before it was implemented, as is pretty standard for such regulations in any context. Nobody's being turned into a felon overnight; I'd expect at least a year between the announcement of new regulations and them coming into effect.

Ozmose posted...

or turning over billions of dollars in personal property.

With reasonable regulations, any property that does have to be turned over is going to be stuff they shouldn't have in the first place. There are potentially ways around even having to do that, though, such as requiring prohibited weapons to be rendered inoperable (so collectors can still enjoy staring at them) or having stricter storage and registration requirements to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

Ozmose posted...

Are you really surprised people are opposed to that?

Surprised? Of course not. Nobody should ever be surprised that the 2A worshippers get uppity about anyone suggesting that they shouldn't just be able to have whatever guns they want with zero restrictions. I just don't care. Registration, background and mental health checks, waiting periods, and secure storage are all things responsible gun owners should already be doing, let alone be okay with having codified into law. Those that aren't okay with it generally aren't the sort of people that should have guns in the first place, so I really couldn't care less if they get uppity about having their guns taken away.

Ozmose posted...

People might be willing to negotiate if there was some actual give and take involved

"Well, I don't like you putting this stop sign up on this corner, but I'll accept it if you let me go 110 mph through the next 3 blocks."

Except, you know, obviously not. Laws are not about "give and take." They're about improving public safety (in this sort of case). That's not to say that their impact on those that don't actually threaten public safety shouldn't be limited wherever possible, but saying "I know you're trying to cut down on the murder rate, but what's in it for me?" is so obviously and insanely asinine that I'm astounded I have to spell this out for you.

LinkPizza posted...

IIRC, Texas just made it illegal for men to wear make-up

So... no more film industry in Texas? Or stage performances featuring anyone but women?

Accrovideogames posted...

Homosexuality becomes a crime again, but a loophole allows gays and lesbians to exist if they become transgender.

That seems unlikely. Across the board, they hate trans people more than homosexuals. It's more likely that homosexuality becomes a crime, then trans people just get shot on sight.

Mofuji posted...

"We need to ban guns!"

Guns get banned, criminals just get illegal guns.

"We need to ban illegal guns!"

Is it really that hard to understand the difference between regulating guns and banning them outright?

If it helps, consider this: How many illegal guns were purchased legally at some point in the supply chain?

GranTurismo posted...

oh you think so? Do you believe this current S.C. is the worst one of your lifetime? in u.s. history?

To make that comparison would require me to do a comprehensive review of major judgements throughout history, which is way too much effort for a comparison that's mostly pointless. They've done some pretty terrible things, though.

Lordkill posted...

and that's where they are going to lose the lawsuit, can't promote one religion over the others

If the constitution is legitimately enforced, that is.

Whatever will yield the worst possible results for anyone that isn't rich enough to ignore the law, so probably uphold it.

faramir77 posted...

I should have the right to introduce my daughter to the concepts of adultery and coveting one's spouse, Litzler said. It shouldnt be one of the first things she learns to read in her kindergarten classroom.

Jfc

It's kind of hilarious how closely that mirrors the "I don't want homosexuality mentioned in schools" hysteria.

redline65 posted...

Does a hammer or baseball bat facilitate people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do?

Uhh, yes. Very much so. Whether or not I have a hammer will all but single-handedly decide whether or not I try to drive a nail that needs driving, and the only reason it's not the sole deciding factor is that I can use other objects as an improvised hammer in a pinch (which could be argued to count as "having a hammer"). "Facilitate" simply means "to enable or make easier," which is exactly the role any tool is meant to play (it's literally why we make tools). Guns absolutely facilitate lethal violence. This does not mean owning a gun will cause you to be violent, but it does mean that owning a gun means that if you decide to be violent (for whatever reason), the outcome is much more likely to be a serious injury or death than if you did not own a gun.

sveksii posted...

And honestly mental health in particular is a red herring, as there isn't even a meaningful correlation between mental illness and (gun) violence, but good job blaming a common scapegoat.

I would argue that anyone that shoots others outside of cases of self-defense is not mentally healthy as a matter of definition, but that is indeed distinct from having a formal "mental illness" that can be diagnosed and treated. Gun violence (along with other violent crimes) can be expected to decrease if mental health services become readily available, but even giving every single person in the country a personal therapist who has a daily appointment with them to check up on them (an impossible extreme) isn't going to eliminate anywhere close to all of it.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

They're just begging to be sued.

They are, but presumably no state court is going to rule against the state, meaning the only recourse is to appeal it up to the Supreme Court. Given this Supreme Court's track record, I fully expect they won't see a problem with it.

wwinterj25 posted...

What no bathwater? This service sucks.

Last I heard, they're working on technology that will allow farts to be captured in bathwater to be delivered as needed, but apparently it's really tricky to get the pressure right to keep the farts from bubbling off and being wasted.

T0ffee posted...

Honestly shocked that they pushed up the release so quickly. Makes me wonder if they just cut a large part of the game out in order to do that.

I kind of doubt it. This has presumably been in development since before the main game launched, so there's been plenty of time, and wave 3 included some files for it already that dataminers found. I'm guessing they're just trying to clear the holiday release window for some bigger stuff that we'll hear about at E3, while also trying to avoid interfering with TotK.

Yep, super hyped for that. Fantasy Life is one of those games hardly anyone else seems to remember, but I loved it and I'm really looking forward to the sequel. It did actually have another sequel a while back that I only learned about relatively recently, but it was a F2P mobile gacha game. I haven't tried it myself (I didn't have space on my phone when I thought to check it out), but I can't say I'm overly optimistic. With a full sequel coming in the near future, I'm content to just wait for that.

Clench281 posted...

2. make the decision they're pro life despite having put little to no thought into such an important topic, which is despicable

I'm willing to give people a little leeway on that one, simply because it's not as simple a topic as it seems at face value, especially for somebody considering it from a position where they'll never have to face any of the downsides themselves (read: dudes), and that can lead to failing to realize how important it is to consider it properly. It's only once they start to resist learning about why they're wrong and need to reconsider their stance that they graduate into being terrible.

potdnewb posted...

there is no need to generalize about individuals

Sure there is. Generalizations form the vast majority of our interactions with the world around us, people included. The trick is not to avoid generalizing at all, but rather to learn when it is and is not appropriate to generalize and be able to recognize when an assumption you've made has turned out to be mistaken.

papercup posted...

This is kind of a crazy year for game releases and updates.

It really is. Most years, there are only really 2-3 games that I want badly enough to even consider grabbing at full price, but this year there's Octopath 2, MMBN Collection, TotK, the Xenoblade 3 DLC, Katamari 2 remake, Baten Kaitos remake, Fantasy Life... I'm probably forgetting some, but it's kind of overwhelming.

potdnewb posted...

so you also create statements not said....

Who else is doing the generalizing, if not people?

potdnewb posted...

interesting logic leap there

"People who generalize entire groups of people" is itself an entire group of people.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

On an individual basis, it depends on if the person is an unreasonable sexist douche canoe or not. There are reasonable people, but a lot of pro birthers seem to be horribly rigid, sexist, archaic, and uncompassionate.

This sounds about right. If they're a decent person in spite of their beliefs, I can separate my dislike of their beliefs and not dislike them personally. By and large, though, decent people are opposed to reproductive slavery, so there isn't too much overlap between the two groups outside of the occasional example of legitimate ignorance (which pretty quickly loses its legitimacy if they start discussing the matter and are presented with the truth of their beliefs). The consequence is that I tend to dislike pro-lifers, but for more reason than just their pro-life views.

potdnewb posted...

generalizing entire groups of people has never really worked out well throughout the entirety of humans

You just generalized an entire group of people by saying that.

Nah, I get the sense that Sunny is genuinely clueless, most of the time. This guy's obviously trolling deliberately.

Revelation34 posted...

No proof that actually happened.

There is absolutely proof that they threw in an obvious token trans character, in that if you play the game there's an obvious token trans character in it. Token trans characters don't just arise spontaneously, after all, so somebody had to put them in there, and given how carefully corporate screens mainstream entertainment to ensure rogue developers don't sneak through any guerilla messages that might irritate the core demographic, there's pretty much a 0% chance it wasn't a corporate decision.

As for the reviewer curation, that's common practice in any situation. Publishers don't send review codes to reviewers that they can't trust to praise them. Direct proof of review manipulation is generally going to be hard to come by, for what I would hope are obvious reasons, but in this case there are enough accounts of reviewers that struggled to get codes (even IGN had to beg for one), and I was able to dig up an article where a former producer for the game talks about how the game's marketing was focused heavily on fans so as to ensure that they developed their opinions and made their purchase decisions before potentially-biased reviews came out:
https://boundingintocomics.com/2023/02/13/former-hogwarts-legacy-producer

That makes sense, and is consistent with what I've seen. It's happened plenty of other times, one of the more recent examples being Cyberpunk: If the fanbase gets hyped up enough before the game comes out, reviewers suggesting that there's anything wrong with it get accused of bias, harassed, and sometimes even assaulted (as happened with one reviewer who said she generally liked Cyberpunk, but issued a major seizure warning for it. People sent her seizure trigger videos to get her back for daring to be so critical). If Hogwarts' reviews had been bad across the board, the fans that had gotten invested in the game through the extensive previews and whatnot would have ignored those scores, making that a very effective strategy under the circumstances.

potdnewb posted...

hate spewing by the tolerant and open minded
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/6/7/AAfa96AAEZm7.png

See, this post qualifies as trolling because it intentionally omits the post to which these people were responding to, misleadingly framing those responses as unprovoked hostility instead of a response to comparable hostility and derision from the person to whom they are responding.

In the future, if you would like to avoid being treated as a troll, I recommend including as much of the full context as you can so as to not be misleading about the situation.

Zareth posted...

Holy shit Jack's back

I thought this was Kwame, not Jack.

I might be setting myself up for disappointment, but I'm getting the vibe that exploring Alvis' connection to Origin and Moebius is going to end up providing some answers for what happens after the main game, even though this is obviously a prologue story, and I think that might just be the best possible way to do it. I'm pretty hyped.

agesboy posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeBG1g1BRMA

the battle theme

im hype

It's like the Bionis Shoulder battle theme and the Mor Ardain field theme had a baby, just with less brass than you might expect from that description. Notably, no flutes, so I guess this is pre-off-seeing.

https://i.imgur.com/rqQywyf.jpg