Lurker > adjl

So a child under 12 (or the required height limit) can sit there safely. Many cars will also automatically disable the airbag if there isn't enough weight in the passenger seat for the same reason. Disabling it when there's nobody in the seat also keeps that airbag from deploying gratuitously.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I liked Rogue Legacy quite a bit. Can't comment on the other one because I haven't played it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Me too. It was very obviously a shameless cash-in on the IP, and pretty dumb, but it was a solidly fun game.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

adjl posted...

WizardofHoth posted...

So its not ok for a hollywood agent or whatever to grab a big black dude's junk but its fine for football athletes to horse around slapping each other in the butts with wet towels etc?

Provided the football players in question are okay with that? Yes. If not, not so much. The only salient factor here is consent. Without proper consent, sexual conduct of any sort is bad. With it, anything's fair game.

That's true. If the big black dude wanted the Hollywood agent to grab his junk, and the Hollywood agent wanted to grab the big black dude's junk, then it would have been fine...

Precisely. But because the big black dude didn't want his junk grabbed, and the Hollywood agent threatened the dude's career (a very credible threat for any actor without an established career) if he resisted, it was not fine.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WizardofHoth posted...

So its not ok for a hollywood agent or whatever to grab a big black dude's junk but its fine for football athletes to horse around slapping each other in the butts with wet towels etc?

Provided the football players in question are okay with that? Yes. If not, not so much. The only salient factor here is consent. Without proper consent, sexual conduct of any sort is bad. With it, anything's fair game.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

FourthDimension posted...

Lokarin posted...

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Can't believe people will still listen to his trite after he advocated pedophilia.

That's not at all what he said. He was on the RECEIVING end, was groomed by (IIRC) a priest. He said it was a positive experience for HIM, and that people shouldn't assume it's automatically negative.

So he advocated pedophilia.

If you're going to ignore all nuance, then yes.

There really isn't a need for nuance, there. His defense of child molestation amounts roughly to "it worked out alright for me," but that's ignoring the millions of people for whom it's caused lifelong psychological trauma. Whether he's actively defending it or not, he's willfully dismissing just how awful child molestation is, and that's not something anyone should ever be doing.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So please, explain to me what would be not "properly collected" evidence in a case which lacks much to find in the first place. If you believe evidence wasn't collected then you must know it exists yet not present it.

Testimony, most notably. Collecting testimony from a recently-traumatized victim is a delicate process, and police often don't do it properly, resulting in the loss of key details that could have resulted in a conviction. The prevailing attitude of "this is going to be hard to prove" also discourages many victims from reporting in the first place, even in cases where there is physical evidence to be collected.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Regardless of how you have been wronged, it's not the job of the law to listen and believe.

It is actually the job of law enforcement to listen and believe. A certain degree of judgement is important to avoid wasting resources on obviously frivolous cases, but for somebody with no history of making false reports and no obvious psychosis (or other mental condition that would be very likely to result in blatant fabrications), a genuine effort should be made to take their claims seriously and investigate them to the fullest possible extent, whatever those claims are.

As much as people like to cite false sexual assault accusations as being a major problem, they aren't actually all that common, almost always fit a well-established pattern consistent with the behaviour of pathological liars, and virtually never result in an actual conviction. They're nowhere near a significant enough issue to affect how readily sexual assault claims are taken seriously, even in cases where concrete proof isn't immediately available.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Oh well my city has had a steep rise in acid attacks in the last few years, hold on while I immigrate to Japan to escape my city's problems.

I'd love to hear why you think that's comparable. With numbers. Good luck.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Are you really so ignorant as to flirt with the issue but not see it? Both acts occur and we can't filter them apart if they don't go through the immigration process. Some Mexicans suffering at home is not justification to bring other people to the US who will make citizens suffer in their home.

You're very much fixating on a different issue to avoid admitting that you said something stupid when you said that these people only have themselves to blame for increasing their risk of getting murdered.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Ordinary people voted in Trump, ordinary people started the cartels, ordinary people became vigilantes to hunt down the cartels in Mexico.

The people of Mexico made Mexico a cartel, so the people of Mexico can make it something else.

If Mexico wants America's help then it can ask for that, but it can't give up and sneak in to safety.

You seem to be conflating all of Mexico with the decisions of individual immigrants, and I'm not really sure why. It's really not unreasonable to say "I'm going to die if I stay here, I'm going to go somewhere where I'll have a better chance," even if that other chance also isn't that great. It's also not unreasonable for that destination country to take steps to ensure that those immigrants aren't going to be harmful. It is, however, unreasonable for the destination country to fabricate a migrant crisis by closing legal border crossings then commit flagrant human rights violations that they try to justify by citing said migrant crisis.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The word colloquially has a positive connotation

"Positive" in the sense of "good," certainly. "Positive" in the sense of "affirmative," much less so. "Positive" in the sense of false positives, not at all. False positives are the opposite of reliability.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Their job is to examine the facts and decide if the evidence is sufficient to determine guilt, this is no different in cases of sexual assault and so you cant claim a discrepancy with sexual assault cases.

Except that sexual assaults are notoriously under-investigated. Sure, once you get into court, the burden of proof is applied reasonably, but if the facts haven't been properly collected in the first place, you're not going to end up with a verdict that reflects the facts.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I doubt it rised a significant degree to close up on the danger they weren't subject to prior

There are literally towns in Mexico that have been taken over by drug cartels within the past few years, who are quite happy to brutally murder people to scare the rest of the town into compliance. It has absolutely risen by a significant degree. Pay attention.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The US doesn't want your child drug mules either.

As in, the cartels running the town wanted to use the kid as a drug mule and the parents opted to run away instead of complying or saying no and being murdered for doing so. Not "my kid's dealing drugs I'd better move him to a better environment." My apologies, I didn't realize you were so ignorant of the situation in Mexico as to be unable to figure out what I meant. I hope this clarifies it for you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have no sense of nuance. You are responsible for your problems. The US is morally responsible for criminals crossing the border and Mexico is morally responsible for being a hub of criminality.

What power do you think ordinary citizens have to clean up Mexico's drug scene?
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As I alluded to, the word "reliable". What else could the world reliable mean in the context of holding somebody accountable?

Consistently arriving at the correct verdict, perhaps? "Reliable" does not in any way imply false positives on its own.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If all sexual assault claims were reliably turned in to prosecutions, you'd have a lot of wrongful arrests.

How is that in any way what I said? How could you possibly look at "reliable legal recourse" and get "automatic guilty verdict for every complaint"?
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

JanwayDaahl posted...

Has anyone noticed that blizzard keeps pandering to support and tank players most often? Especially support players; their heroes get quick updates, quick bugfixes, and we've had like 3 supports added post-launch.

Heroes like doomfist (who I love playing) are still super buggy. Makes it a bad pick at masters level

Why are you playing Overwatch? Didn't you vow never to support you-know-what?

Same with TLoU. For being so adamantly anti-gay, Janway seems fine with playing games that prominently feature gay characters.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

On and off from launch until ~8 months into WotLK (July 2009). It was fun, but then I drifted away from it and haven't particularly felt any desire to go back. I did cash in a free week in January 2010 and was reasonably entertained for that week, but that was it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

For one thing, you're presuming the risk of getting murdered hasn't changed over the course of those parents lives, which is objectively false.

If they've done something to make themselves a target of murder that they successfully avoided until now, they aren't people you want in your country.

In many cases, that something is "living in a town that has more murderers now than it did 20 years ago." In many other cases, that something is "not wanting their child to be a drug mule."

For somebody who doesn't see the problem with "letting all these muslims into the country is going to get us all jihadi-bombed!", you seem to have a strange amount of difficulty understanding that one's risk of getting murdered can be dependent on factors other than one's personal decisions to endanger themselves.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Taking their kids through a situation with an 80% rape risk is worse than staying put in a situation where you could get murdered but it hasn't happened to you for the life you grew up and had children in.

For one thing, you're presuming the risk of getting murdered hasn't changed over the course of those parents lives, which is objectively false. For another, you're presuming the destination country can't do anything to improve that risk of being raped, which is also objectively false. So I guess you're just wrong in every way. Bummer.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

I'm just wondering where all those MRA's are that keep bringing up the treatment of sexual assault against males whenever anybody suggests sexual assault against females should be taken more seriously. You'd think they'd be tripping over themselves to praise Crews' courage and offer their support, given how much of a trailblazer he's being for that cause.

Because MRAs don't think the law needs to change to suit them regarding sexual harassment.

Male victims of sexual assault don't need reliable legal recourse for holding their attackers accountable?
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Peterass posted...

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.

Yes, illegally crossing a border with their kids makes them such worse parents than staying put and getting murdered would.

What a maroon.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'm just wondering where all those MRA's are that keep bringing up the treatment of sexual assault against males whenever anybody suggests sexual assault against females should be taken more seriously. You'd think they'd be tripping over themselves to praise Crews' courage and offer their support, given how much of a trailblazer he's being for that cause.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

"Trump really cares about the sanctity of marriage! I'm going to ignore that he's on his third wife and has a long-standing reputation as a serial philanderer!"
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Not really. You can't have faith in God while acknowledging he might not exist.

Sure you can. "He might not exist, but it seems plausible enough that he does that I shall act accordingly until proven otherwise." Really, that's the most sensible way to approach religion: being open to the possibility that you may have picked the wrong doctrine to commit yourself to if presented with evidence that supports such a conclusion.

Furthermore, marriages aren't god. The nature of relationships is that life can have unpredictable effects on them, especially once shared finances come into the mix. Emotions can also be unpredictable; there's no reason to presume that you won't ever fall out of love with someone. If anything, I'd say that entering a marriage without acknowledging the possibility of divorce is the idiotic option, not the smart one. That's not to say that people should get married if they feel divorce is a *likely* outcome, because that's just dumb, but acting like it's impossible is failing to recognize just how unpredictable life and love can be.

VixYW posted...

Turn the board around and think in this way: if your partner proposes a prenup for whatever reason, isn't it a sign of mistrust or ill will on your end to refuse or break up, meaning that they were right in doing so in the first place?

Depends how it's framed. If she comes out of nowhere and says "by the way here are the conditions I will be imposing if we break up please sign here," then yes, that's a sign of distrust, because she hasn't raised any of those points she's skeptical about with me before bringing them up in contract form. Ideally, a prenup should be the product of discussion between all involved parties, allowing them to decide how a hypothetical breakup should go before high-riding emotions come into play.

Frequently, it does get framed in terms of "how can I protect myself from you?", but if you frame it instead as "how can I reasonably make sure you won't be ruined by a hypothetical divorce?", it becomes far less hostile. If your partner frames their ideas for the agreement in the same manner, then you both end up in a marriage that neither of you are completely dependent on maintaining, and by framing it as being considerate of how the other person will end up, it becomes a matter of looking out for each other instead of protecting yourselves from each other.

Really, whether we're talking about formal prenups or not, that's something that couples should be considering any time a degree of codependency is introduced into their relationship. Couples shouldn't move in together unless they've got some kind of a plan for how they're going to be able to function if they break up (i.e. will one of them be able to afford the apartment on their own). That becomes less of a pressing consideration as the relationship stabilizes, but it's still good to have conversations about what will happen in the event of a breakup. You can do that without implying that a breakup is inevitable.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The problem is that you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.

That's only a "problem" insofar as it's not immediately intuitive for my audience. Applying rationality to something inherently irrational is precisely why it's a good idea: To mitigate the impact of that irrationality, because that irrationality can end up hurting people pretty badly.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

for the average person, it's basically telling your significant other that you don't trust them and that you have no faith in your marriage actually lasting.

Which is really fairly dumb. You can have faith in a marriage lasting while still acknowledging that it might not. Pre-nups just recognize that failure is a possibility, not a guarantee. It does amount to not trusting the other person to behave maturely and reasonably in the event of a divorce, though, which I can definitely understand being an issue.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Andromicus posted...

adjl posted...

Man, if only another president in recent history had tried enacting tariffs on steel so Trump could have learned from that history instead of having to make this mistake himself. That would have been so convenient.

Who dat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff

A study from 2003 that was paid for by CITAC, a trade association of businesses that use raw materials, found that around 200,000 jobs were lost as a result.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Man, if only another president in recent history had tried enacting tariffs on steel so Trump could have learned from that history instead of having to make this mistake himself. That would have been so convenient.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Already have it pre-ordered.

It is a proper full release from Square-Enix, not some poor indie title like Mead and Zeus imply.

Try the demo, it has the potential to go up against the big leagues for GOTY.

Are you trying to suggest that Square Enix makes good games nowadays?

Cause Id personally put my bets on most indie titles in comparison

Bravely Default was quite solid, if you ignore the latter half of the story. As much as Squenix likes to think nobody wants turn-based RPG's anymore, they are still pretty good at them.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Most likely. Dunno when, since I doubt I'll go grab it at launch, but I expect to get it at some point unless it ends up sucking.

Mead posted...

No considering its a $60 release, I honestly expected it to be a $20 game at most

I'm presuming that it's going to comfortably break the 40-hour mark that JRPG's usually have no trouble hitting. The idea that that's not worth $60 is pretty absurd.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I think you got excited and hit the Post button too soon.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

VixYW posted...

No because open relationships are a thing, even after marriage, and such a thing could end up prejudicing these people in one way or another.

Open relationships aren't cheating, though. It's not a matter of making all extramarital sex illegal, just cheating, and it's only cheating if your partner doesn't consent to it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Depends what else is in there.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Grendel posted...

Not criminal, but it should always be a strong factor in the divorce proceedings. It's a major contract violation and should be treated as such.

Sounds about right. I'd also be in favour of applying some degree of criminality to giving one's partner an STI by cheating, especially if it's a serious one like HIV or syphilis.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

EightySeven posted...

Yes, the same book that countless doctors use to diagnose mental illnesses thus invalidating your snide, asinine remark about how people can't disagree with the World Health Organization because doctors created their guidelines despite the fact that it's far from representative of the psychology community as a whole.

The DSM-V, however, is not any way indicative of whether or not the DSM-VI will reflect this change. Citing the DSM's current state as being representative of the current prevailing opinions in the medical field ignores that it's not at all a new book. It'll be used as the basis for diagnosing mental disorders until a new version (or at least revision) is released, but that doesn't automatically mean it's the best possible practice. Just that it's the current diagnostic standard.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I would too. But less because it's been "proved" to be objective fact in any way, and more because the social sciences in general and psychology in particular have always been strongly influenced by public opinion and political pressure.

What? Social sciences are influenced by social factors? Alert the Internet!

Less sarcastically, that's more or less the same point I'm making. There will be opposition to this decision from people who are not at all medically qualified and have no actual reason to oppose it except that they don't like the idea of trans people and therefore don't want their existence validated in any way. There will be support for this decision from people who are not at all medically qualified and have no actual reason to support it except that they want to be accepting of people they feel are at risk of being stigmatized (as well as in response to the former group of people). In truth, everyone should just **** off and let science do its job, whether the results conform to their preconceived biases or not.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Arguably, the exact same same thing can be said of all body dysphoria disorders, yet very few people would argue that anorexia is a "lifestyle choice" or a "natural" mindset as opposed to implicitly accepting that anorexia is very much a disorder, and needs to be treated rather than tolerated or ignored.

Very arguably. Treatment for eating disorders is largely mental. It's often paired with diets and nutritional supplementation to help repair the damage done, which are physical treatments, but that's how the effects are treated, not the disorder itself. Similarly, sewing up the wrists of somebody who attempted suicide doesn't turn depression into a physical disorder.

The argument for calling gender dysphoria a physical disorder comes in that the treatment approach is to alter the body to match the mind. That's also done in some other examples of BDD (Clench's breast reduction, to use a PotD example), so you could make a similar argument there, but in the case of eating disorders in particular, it's necessary to change the mind instead.

Zeus posted...

I fully expect "Anorexic Pride" to be a thing next.

Whether or not that's a bad thing really depends on what you mean by "pride." Being proud of being anorexic? That's a bad thing, though acknowledging that is relatively new given the body ideals that have been promoted by the modeling industry. Not being ashamed of being anorexic? As with any mental disorder, that's unambiguously a good thing.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Because they get there before you do and don't want to let the door slam in your face because that would be rude.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

EclairReturns posted...

Zeus posted...

you know that she's down for a good time

But he also knows that she's horny and would be ashamed to sleep with some random bloke.

Is bloke your catchphrase now?

You could say he's bloken.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

helIy posted...

Exodiver posted...

@Zeus posted...

tbh, FFT:WOL is in a class by itself. FFTA was fun, but inferior across the board (other than not using some unbalanced mechanics from the original). However, even another FFTA-quality game would be welcomed.

Is FFT:WOL very different from the original FFT? I've yet to play that one. I also played both FFTA games (didnt finish FFTA2), liked both games for the classes variety, it's a nice lighthearted games...

how the fuck have you played the shitty ones but not the best one

I mean, they are on completely different systems.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The biggest reason people show up in the "people you may know" feed is that they looked at your profile.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It doesn't, but part of being a decent person is being able to recognize when dark humour is inappropriate.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Syggys posted...

You mean venomous. Poisonous means something else. All spiders are venomous afaik, but that's not what I said. I specifically said "dangerous".

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/venom

Typically, "venom" refers specifically to toxins that must be injected to cause harm, while "poison" refers to toxins that must be ingested or absorbed. Being synonymous just means they have similar meanings, not that they can be freely interchanged.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DPsx7 posted...

How could you know? Valve could have millions of bug reports and they sweep them under the rug like I experienced.

In which case millions of users would be echoing your complaints. Are they?

DPsx7 posted...

The hell do they have to do with Steam? My PC didn't use VB back then.

Sounds like we may have found the problem, then.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

helIy posted...

darcandkharg31 posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Well I have some macaroni but Im not hungry for it, theres pizzas but thats not healthy enough, some eggs I may use, saffron, green onion, I obviously have rice and noodles, and I have seaweed somewhere I think, beef and chicken broth, carrots, tomatoes, leftover duck from last night, spinach, cauliflower...thats basically it

So basically you have a lot to eat but you're being picky

don't sit there and tell me you never wanted to just go get a burger instead of making something

Sure, but I don't say there's nothing to cook in that case.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Nade Duck posted...

"nintenfaqs"

Yeah, right. Look at the state of the N64 versus the state of the PS in this contest and tell me it's "Nintenfaqs".

I believe that's the point of the quotation marks.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DPsx7 posted...

There's an important thing you keep forgetting. Just because 'others are doing it' doesn't make it right, or even smart. Smoking, drinking, sex, politics, hell many people bought pet rocks and Chia Pets.

The crowd mentality doesn't prove you right or me wrong.

That's not what I said, though. What I said is that "others are able to do it without issue," which does comprise a very solid case against your "Steam is horribly dysfunctional and makes computers explode the moment you download it." We're not talking about any sort of moral good here, we're talking about how generalizable your experience and position are, and the answer to that question is "not remotely." That's not a matter of crowd mentality, that's just a simple fact. You are objectively wrong.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Because you find harder-than-easy mode fun.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zareth posted...

adjl posted...

That's not an entirely fair comparison to make.

Brad from 4playerpodcast in a nutshell. >_>

Fair enough.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zareth posted...

adjl posted...

Liking FFT but disliking FFTA/2 is a common enough opinion to justify that option.

A lot of it has to do with the story and tone of the game. As Brad from 4playerpodcast put it, "FFT begins when your childhood friend who you thought was dead kidnaps the princess you're protecting and starts a war. FFTA begins with a snowball fight."

That's not an entirely fair comparison to make. A game's start doesn't have to immediately drop you into the central conflict of the story; it's not at all uncommon to spend time introducing the world and its characters so that there is an established baseline for daily life before the central conflict shows up and disrupts that.

Making the comparison between the overall tones and stories? Sure (I won't try, having not played FFT myself, but sure). But comparing just the opening scenes like that? That doesn't really tell you anything.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It doesn't have a subtitle, but there's no 1, and they don't call Sacred Stones FE2. It's actually kind of odd that it doesn't have a subtitle, since even FE1 had one, but I guess they didn't want to confuse the "are Marth and Roy in this game?" crowd by calling it anything more complicated.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DPsx7 posted...

Steam does give you hints on why you shouldn't use it. Some people listen, some don't.

I don't think Steam invented the finitude of bandwidth.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DPsx7 posted...

A few years hardly cancels my experience.

A few years of stability updates and a trend toward more normalized gaming PC hardware setups? Yes, it absolutely does. PC gaming has changed radically since the days of HL2, when an update that fixed a game for one computer could completely break it for others. For all Windows Vista's flaws, it did start a trend toward more normalized Windows configurations, which has made developing PC games much easier.

Your experience will continue to exist, because the past doesn't change (although given how you're behaving, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you seriously demand that Valve invent time travel to fix your problem before it happened), but what does change is how reflective your experience is of using Steam today. As millions of satisfied customers can tell you, it isn't.

DPsx7 posted...

So Steam is just bad software that wanted to be honest for a minute.

Umm.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Liking FFT but disliking FFTA/2 is a common enough opinion to justify that option. FFTA is the direction Squenix seems to have taken the series, so rather than having their hopes raised by the announcement of a new FFT game that would likely disappoint them, those people would rather Squenix leave it alone.

Now, there's lots of room to criticize the "*Studio* shouldn't bother making games that I don't personally like" attitude, since that's just narcissistic and short-sighted, but that's another matter. The intent of the poll options is to reflect popular opinions on the matter, and that is a common opinion on FFT.

SOLDIER_Bankai posted...

I'm pretty disappointed that that's one of the options instead of "No, I just don't like the Tactics series".

It's not a perfect fit, but option 4 covers that well enough. Nobody should ever actively want a game to not be made just because they don't care for the series. Not caring because you have no further interest in it is a much more reasonable response than a flat "no."
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

fire emblem numbering is messed up too

FE just has subtitles, not numbered titles. The only messed up one is FE7, which has no subtitle in the western release.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

NightMareBunny posted...

if i need to wait that long just to play one round of an average multiplayer game then it's not even worth it...

But you don't need to wait that long. You just need to do something else for that long. Waiting for something to download does not in any way use your time unless you choose to do so by staring at the download bar. If it's going to download all night, put it on and go to sleep.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.