Lurker > greenmist01

AllstarSniper32 posted...

The PotD board has one strict rule, no talking about the poll of the day.

If its such a strict rule, why is it not easier to find then?

I havent seen it anywhere.

DPsx7 posted...

Then there's awful games that walkthroughs can't help. So in very rare circumstances I'll quit before seeing the end. Hotline Miami was the worst top down shooter. Bloodborne had no bosses that I could find. No More Heroes (played with Move) had terrible collision detection. Somehow I got stuck with a bad save on the recent Secret of Mana on PS4 and didn't want to restart. Oh and the last one I recall for this gen was Evil Within which wasn't the stealth game I wanted, it was a shooter with no ammo to be found.

I tried playing Bloodbourne recently, and dam that game is hard!!!!. I gave up on it very quickly, too hard!!!. Early in the game you have to take on this massive huge executioner type guy, who's got tons of energy, your not that powerfull, cause its early in the game, and you hardly have any room to dodge and evade his attacks.

Evil Within i gave up on before completing aswell, for the same reason too. I think the secret with that game was, build up on your stats first that allow you to carry more ammo, otherwise you get rather far in the game and you run out of ammo, where as you could have collected more, if you built that stat up first. I think with me it happend at the part in the game where i had to take on that box head guy.

As of writing this, that is what todays poll is, what do you do if you get to a part in the game and your stuck?. I picked the answer "go online and read walkthroughs or watch videos on the game to see where i am going wrong".

One answer said "give up, stop playing, uninstall the game". Who out there does that before at least doing the answer i said?. Who throws in the towel that quickly and easily?. Going online and having a look at walkthroughs and videos certainly helped me when it came to fighting boss characters in Gears of War games.

But there have been times though, when going online did not help, and no matter how many times i tried, i could not get part that bit. Its a shame that games dont have actual cheats anymore, like infinite health ect, just to help you get past that part your stuck on, then when you have, you deactivate the cheat, and carry on as normal.

Games where i gave up on them totally, because of a very difficult bit, are

Prison Break - There is a moment in the game where you out in a courtyard at night, and you have to pick a lock very quickly to get inside a building, before the guard walks up to that building and catches you

one of the latest Doom games - It might have been the latest Doom game, i dont remember. But there was a part on there i just could not get past, without dying all the time.

The very first Metro game - Theres a part where your on the earths surface, out in the snow, and theres just too many enemies to deal with, that you keep dying

lords of the fallen - The very end boss in the game, could not defeat him

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yeah, if you've resolved to do a photo every day, it's part of your morning routine most likely. You won't just abruptly decide not to do it because you had a bad day.

Theres a difference though between, just having a bad day, and.....going through something that makes you feel your whole life has been torn apart, or turned upside down.

Yeah, but lets say your mother or father died when you are 13, on the first or second day after their death, are you really gonna care to take a photo of yourself, to keep up with a 10 year project?

I really wasnt sure where to post this, as there isnt a message board section for youtube, or the internet in general. A few people have done videos showing every single photo they took once per day, everyday, from the ages of 12 till 22 ect. So yeah, they made a point of taking one photo of themselves per day, everyday, for 10 years. I will admit, that is quite the project indeed.

One thing i think that also shows is, what a happy and care free life they had between them years, to care to take a photo everyday of themselves. I would not have been able to do that, because when i was 14 my grand mother died, and when i was 18 i ran away from home for a short while because i was having bad problems in my life (i wont go into detail).

I think most people would not have a fortunate life between them years, to be able to do that aswell. All sorts of bad things can happen to a persons life between the ages of 12 to 22.

* A grand parent or a parent could die
* Your parents get divorced
* Your first gf or bf cheats on you and dumps you and brakes your heart
* You could end up in an abusive friendship or relationship
* You might end up in a bad crowd or a gang
* You might need major hospital surgery for something
* You might get addicted to drugs or alchohol
* You might be unlucky enough to be horribly bullied at school often
* You might catch an STD at one time like VD or gonorrhoea
* You might become anorexic for a short while

Im sure theres more i could list, but those people obviously never went through any of them things, to have kept that up for 10 years.

I cant believe that a few people in this thread have defended the idea of blocking off roads/freeways to protest, by quoting in the First Amendment. These people demonstrate that they truly dont have a decent grasp of what freedom of speech means.

Ive said this before and I'll say it again, the First Amendment gives you the right to voice/speak your views. It does not however give you the right to be listened to. Putting others in a position where they are not given the choice to not listen to you (i.e. blocking off highways) voilates that. The first amendment does not protect you there.

DuranOfForcena posted...

not everyone is gonna have an opinion about everything every time, that's just preposterous to think that should be a thing. i don't know exactly how you are defining "nearly everything" or "nearly all the time" though.

That is true i agree. There is the odd thing out there i dont have opinions on, because i havent thought about it enough, or i havent seen enough evidence to convince me to take a side.

i guess i was making this thread as i have know someone who was pretty much opinionless on over 50% of conversation topics i tried making with them, and yeah, as a result i ended up finding them rubbish at conversations, and not good at carrying conversations.

My conclusion was that the two go hand in hand with each other. People who have lots of opinions tend to be good at conversations. Those who dont have many opinions tend not to be.

I couldent find the soapbox thread, so i thought here would be ok.

Now i know that Piers Morgan is not a widely liked man, or a man whos opinions are widely agreed with. But sometimes.......just sometimes, i do think he makes good points.

When he came out and said "cant you stand it when you speak to someone hoping for a view point from them and they just come out and say, actually i dont have an opinion on that. Well why not?....why have you not taken the time to engage your brain so you do have a viewpoint on it?"

I do agree with him that it is annoying when you come across someone who keeps being opinionless on nearly everything. Because from my experiences, people that are opinionless nearly all the time are rubbish at conversations, they are rubbish at carrying conversations, and i think i know why.

Nearly every conversation topic out there is based on an opinion isnt it?. When someone talks about politics, the catalyst of the very conversation is their political viewpoints. When someone makes a conversation about a movie for example, it stems from their opinion on said movie. So it explains why opinionless people are rubbish at conversations.

Hmmmmm i wonder if this thread and poll was created, because of this thread i made today?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/261-politics/78034958

I wont say my views here on said subject, as i have already done so in the linked thread.

The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.

It was an honest mistake on my part. Its not like i acted upset by what i thought you said. Wasnt trying to be a social justice warrior or special snowflake in this thread.

Personally i think its daft and a waste of emotional energy to act all triggered by a view point or opinion a total stranger living miles away from me on the other end of a computer

If true, I don't see a problem with this.

You dont?. you don't think it is blatant exploitation?. What fundementaly defines an act of sex as rape, is when you make sex on someone without their consent. If the woman consents to sex only on the condition of the man wearing a condom, but then during the sex he takes the condom off, then he has removed the very condition for the sex.

Someone consenting to sex only under a strict condition, does not automaticly equal all conditions are permissable. Personally I think it's a very selfish thing to do, when you consider that the reason for someone wanting a condom worn during sex, is to protect them from STDs and pregnancies.

But id imagine that stealthing is a very hard crime to prove, and ultimately it probably falls down on, the defendant's word vs the prosecutors word.

Apparently in Sweden......(correct me if im wrong here), apparently, if a woman consents to sex with a man, provided he wears a condom, but during the sex, the man takes off the condom, and then puts his penis into her vagina and continues the sex, its rape.

I dont know if in the eyes of the law, it be seen as rape or not, but ethically it is a very scummy thing to do i think.

Think about it.........your enticing a woman to leisurely consume a substance all in the goal of rendering her so she doesnt think and act on her better judgement (and you know the alcohol or the weed will have that effect), so she is more likely to have sex with you. Your just seeing her and treating her like an object, like a piece of meat. She certainly wont thank you for it if she knew that was your intention.

And im a male by the way.